The Alpha Commander

Well fair enough! But don't just go 'Well fine if you don't think the same as me, there's no point in talking to you!' It's not really becoming.

I feel like I have tried to justify (in my opinion) why the commanders arms should face forward when idle.

Why don't you tell me why they shouldn't! I'm guessing a little from your previous posts you feel the commanders should have some kind of idle animations based on their 'personalities'?

You haven't justified it though.

You're saying that all Commanders should conform to this boring wooden stance because it's "realistic" that advanced, sentient AI beings expect a target to be directly in front of them.

I refute that claim. Advanced AI beings have no business looking like a plank of wood.

We're discussing pose. In my opinion, the pose of Alpha and Delta could use a little work. So I think this discussion is perfectly fine.


And if we wanted to get super(say that in German) technical here, forward facing guns win when the opponent comes from the front. They however lose out when having to turn. The moment of inertia makes it harder to turn quickly. Get your spinny office chair, hold your arms and legs out and give yourself a spin. Now pull all your limbs in as close as possible. You'll see what I mean.

Lets assume that the probability of opposing tanks coming to shoot you is equal in every direction. Lets further assume that forward is consider to be the 90% arc that's in front of the Commander.

From that, we can conclude that statistically, it's three times better to not have your gun(s) facing forward.

See that's more like it!

Well in my opinion, that's a pretty reasonable argument. No matter how sentient, or ancient an AI is - it is still going to act in a way that will maximize its survival chances. Look at soldiers storming a building; you don't catch anyone wandering in with their guns pointed at the ground do you? Due to the nature of PA, I don't think there would ever be a time in the battle where a commander could guarantee its safety (unless the opponent is about to be defeated)! So it is hardly going to spend time with its weapons in a disadvantaged position.

And BulletMagnet has already refuted that bit of logic. On a spherical playing field attacks come, three times out of four, not from the front 90 degree arc.

haha yes, good point. But have you taken into account time taken to bring your gun up or down into a position to then fire.

By your logic, your gun should either face directly up, or down as this would yield maximum reduction on the moment of inertia. Ok great, you turn faster - but then there is a delay where your weapon comes into firing position again.

The question is then, does the improvement in turning speed, compensate for the increased time to acquire a target if your guns are not pointing forwards.

So you're willing to take things as presented without proof, yet demand proof of another viewpoint's validity?

Isn't that hypocritical?

---

Artistically it is bothersome that, apparently, all Commanders in a bipedal configuration must have the same body structure and scale of various parts. These, supposedly individual, Commanders are looking pretty samey as things have been presented so far. Moreover it is troubling that, as presented so far, We are seeing extreme rigidity with regards to the Animation Rigs.

If they could have altered the position, spacing and size of the hips, shoulders and arms... would they not have done so?

What we are asking of Uber is; how flexible is the Rigging for your Animation Skeletons... because what you've shown us so far isn't indicative of there being much.

Isn't your comment rather silly and somewhat personally attacking?

I don't think you realize that although I have my opinions, I understand that they may not be correct! I am open to being convinced otherwise. That is the whole basis of an adult argument; reaching a position where by parties are convinced of the best way forward.

My question was not an attempt to shoot down bullets argument. I have tried to pose a question, the answer to which actually resolves the argument either way (based on targeting efficiency anyway).

I'm not here to be right. If it turns out it is actually more efficient/faster to have your guns pointed at the ground I would leave convinced and having learned something new.

And at the end of the day, it's a game, why so serious?

It doesn't mean anything. Gaming shouldn't be taken seriously as an art form. Coders aren't artists. Games Developers aren't artists. UberEnt, its employees and its products aren't to be taken seriously.

It's just a game.

"I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams."

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's naturally going to depend on exactly how far you turn. [EDIT:] If you assume that up/down is just as costly as left/right, then left/right can (at best) be equal to up/down.

It depends on the length of your gun, so something like a giant pike is always going to be slow to aim to matter if you swing it up/down or left/right. But with shorter guns, you have the advantage of being able to use both your elbow and shoulder to bring a gun to aim.

To take it to the most logical extreme possible; don't have arms. Instead, snub-nosed turrets attached to the shoulders so that the rotational moment of inertia is small in every aspect.

Which brings us nicely as to why have guns mounted on arms at all?

The answer to which is because; It is artistically pleasing to do so.
On that note; Do the toes and shins really need to be Team Coloured? I much prefered the Concept Art's approach.

All very good points! So, at the most basic level, it appears that it is impossible/very difficult to work out weather having your guns pointed forwards, is faster than guns pointing upwards/downwards.

I am not sure that having snub nosed turrets are arms would actually be the most logical way forwards though. The arm has functionality beyond just looking shiny! It allows for a greater range of movement, especially in the upward direction when engaging aircraft. I also feel like the commander gun is probably as small as it could ever get (in the game it has already has thousands of years to perfect itself) - so it could never really be a snub nosed turret, its too bulky!

So turrets don't have Pitch now?

Dude, the Arms are there to make it look more human. They are there because it is artistically pleasing for a human to look at. There simply is no reason for the Delta (or any other Commander for that matter) to have limbs, cephalisation or anything else that makes it look even remotely like a human, other than artistic choice.

got to agree with mike's points as well. So far the Alpha Looks good but needs some more tuning to match the perfect concept art.

Also I agree that both commanders look to stiff. I know this is alpha and so on, but the torso especially the arms look too attached and toy-like.

btw: am I the only one who thinks that the legs for the Alpha match a lot more to whole proportion of the commander, than of the Delta? The Delta's legs/feet are kind of too small imao, like he would fall over with these big guns...

That's a stylistic choice that I quite like actually. I was pleased to see the Delta looking so... "svelte". The Alpha doesn't look svelte in his concept art... so forcing him to adopt that look from the Delta's rig has altered his feel.

The Alpha... just doesn't look like the Alpha. He looks like the Delta if the Delta had let himself go.

Ahhhhhh, yes! My apologies, stupid me, for some absurd reason I pictured the commander gun attached onto the bottom of a shoulder plate - where the arm would be! Not attached onto the side of the body !

So, uh, back to the actual base reason on which knights criticisms are founded...

Is it a lot more work to make a new animation rig for the fairly different figure/shape of the Alpha commander? Much more than just making the new model and applying the old rig to it?

If they could have altered the position, spacing and size of the hips, shoulders and arms... would they not have done so?

It's certainly not impossible to calculate. These calculations are done all the darn time by every robotic control system the world over. Big Dog, PetMan/Atlas, and Honda's Asimo all do them.

The reason why I haven't done them is because I lack quantifiable data on the commanders. How is the weight distributed amongst all the body parts?

And you are most certainly correct that arms are more useful than fashion accessories. You can, and would, use them to help aim faster - which is why locking them rigidly to the side of your body doesn't seem to make much sense. Arms are also great for maintaining balance. Put on a pair of joggers, and do a 50m sprint while keeping your arms tightly folded. It's difficult as hell, and you'll tire so much faster than if your arms were free.

[PS:] All these darn new posts while I'm typing!

Talked to the Devs a while ago about that very topic Bullet

What I took away from the conversation is that making Commanders acquire targets like the Aeon Colossus of old... was difficult and time consuming.