Jump to content

Please Revert The Visual Catapult Ppc Change


47 replies to this topic

Poll: K2 PPC change (179 member(s) have cast votes)

Change/revert the visual PPC change?

  1. Voted Yes (131 votes [73.18%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 73.18%

  2. No (30 votes [16.76%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.76%

  3. Abstain (18 votes [10.06%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.06%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 12:24 PM

I honestly have no idea whatsoever why this change was made. Like many others, I think it looks pretty silly.




....that is all.

#22 Dirus Nigh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,382 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 06:03 PM

I agree with the OP on PPC mounts for the K2.

However I always wanted a unique barrel for a large laser. Bring back the old barrel for PPCs, and use the new barrel for Large lasers. Medium lasers can have the nubby sawed off look.

#23 Iacov

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 668 posts
  • LocationAustria

Posted 16 November 2013 - 03:07 AM

has anyone found yet an official response to the whole catapult missile/ppc arms thing? (especially the ppcs arms in the "old-k2-arms-interest-group" sense)
hope we get a response somewhere

#24 Damia Savon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 608 posts
  • LocationMidwest, USA

Posted 16 November 2013 - 10:48 AM

View PostDirus Nigh, on 10 November 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

I agree with the OP on PPC mounts for the K2.

However I always wanted a unique barrel for a large laser. Bring back the old barrel for PPCs, and use the new barrel for Large lasers. Medium lasers can have the nubby sawed off look.


I mentioned this in another thread about the horror that is now the Catapult Missle pods. Use the old models for the PPCs and the new Models for lasers. I hate the new "bump" lasers when the new PPC barrels look great as lasers

#25 Cimarb

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,912 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationA hop, skip and jump from Terra

Posted 16 November 2013 - 11:17 AM

View PostIacov, on 16 November 2013 - 03:07 AM, said:

has anyone found yet an official response to the whole catapult missile/ppc arms thing? (especially the ppcs arms in the "old-k2-arms-interest-group" sense)
hope we get a response somewhere

Russ said on Twitter that it was being addressed, but no specifics.

#26 Dirus Nigh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,382 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 08:37 PM

View PostDamia Savon, on 16 November 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:


I mentioned this in another thread about the horror that is now the Catapult Missle pods. Use the old models for the PPCs and the new Models for lasers. I hate the new "bump" lasers when the new PPC barrels look great as lasers


Yeah. I hate the new missile pods for the catapult too. It makes the arms twice as big as before and just looks bad. All they had to do was use the 15 tube box for any load out with 15 missiles or less, then use the 20 tube box for load outs with more than 15 tubes. That way all they had to do was create a different facing for the missile box.

#27 Iacov

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 668 posts
  • LocationAustria

Posted 08 December 2013 - 09:13 AM

last patch didn't change much for neither lrm nor ppcs (didn't know that ac sizes were an issue)

what do you think? will the ppcs getting looked at again by the devs? (guess the lrms will be fixed for sure)

#28 StalaggtIKE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 2,304 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA

Posted 08 December 2013 - 09:22 AM

View PostDirus Nigh, on 16 November 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:


Yeah. I hate the new missile pods for the catapult too. It makes the arms twice as big as before and just looks bad. All they had to do was use the 15 tube box for any load out with 15 missiles or less, then use the 20 tube box for load outs with more than 15 tubes. That way all they had to do was create a different facing for the missile box.

+1.

#29 Blue Footed Booby

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 393 posts
  • LocationHere?

Posted 10 December 2013 - 11:15 AM

What bugs me is how obvious it is that LRMs fly in straight lines between flight path control points. I remember PGI's explanation of why there are control points and how it decides where to place them, but I don't understand why the final flight path has obvious angles instead of being a spline. It's not any more processor intensive, it wouldn't conflict with the changes that precipitated the "new" behavior (as long it's done sensibly), and it would look so much better.

#30 Aramoro999

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 214 posts

Posted 10 December 2013 - 11:30 AM

This...deserves more attention...

+1 vote

#31 Malleus011

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,854 posts

Posted 10 December 2013 - 11:53 AM

The official response has been 'We're working on it' via twitter.

They've altered some of the ballistics on the K2 since the change, but no idea if they're going to fix the other issues with the Catapult missile boxes and energy weapons.

#32 ice trey

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,523 posts
  • LocationFukushima, Japan

Posted 14 December 2013 - 12:25 AM

I admit that I like the bigger PPC barrels.

...But in the grand scheme of things, I'd much rather they tackle getting big issues like UI 2.0 and ComWar out of the way before aesthetics and other issues that don't hold much bearing to the actual game.

Edited by ice trey, 14 December 2013 - 12:25 AM.


#33 Metalcell

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 104 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 15 December 2013 - 03:00 PM

when they come out with the bigger ver. of the PPCs then I'm sure they will look like the old k2 cannons.

#34 Prezimonto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,017 posts
  • LocationKufstein FRR

Posted 19 December 2013 - 11:28 AM

View PostBlue Footed Booby, on 10 December 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

What bugs me is how obvious it is that LRMs fly in straight lines between flight path control points. I remember PGI's explanation of why there are control points and how it decides where to place them, but I don't understand why the final flight path has obvious angles instead of being a spline. It's not any more processor intensive, it wouldn't conflict with the changes that precipitated the "new" behavior (as long it's done sensibly), and it would look so much better.


Spline would be much better. It seems silly they didn't use one, particular since it wouldn't need many points to approximate any decent line shape missiles in this game would take.

The actual issue is that they've probably never heard of a spline function for estimating line shapes. Heck, I only know about them from slap-dash baseline corrections in data processing.

Edited by Prezimonto, 19 December 2013 - 11:30 AM.


#35 Cimarb

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,912 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationA hop, skip and jump from Terra

Posted 12 January 2014 - 07:03 PM

Why does this stupid thread keep showing as new?...

#36 Alcom Isst

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Professional
  • The Professional
  • 935 posts
  • LocationElo Heaven

Posted 12 January 2014 - 07:08 PM

View PostCimarb, on 12 January 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

Why does this stupid thread keep showing as new?...


There is a poll. It will show up as new when someone votes.

#37 Cimarb

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,912 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationA hop, skip and jump from Terra

Posted 12 January 2014 - 07:15 PM

View PostAlcom Isst, on 12 January 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:


There is a poll. It will show up as new when someone votes.

Wow, how horrible.... How do I "unsubscribe" then?...

#38 Degalus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 364 posts
  • LocationAustria

Posted 12 January 2014 - 10:07 PM

... i realy hope they will fix the ppcs and missleboxes.
Let me tell you a little story.
Some time ago i play with my catapults. I had so much fun with them that they was my most played mechs from 30 mechs i had.
Then the Hero Catapult shows up and i was thinking
"wow a jump jet laserboat hero of my farvorite chassi! Must have!"
But then... after i bought it, i saw the tiny ppcs
"what? Why?.. k then i must switch the lasers from the torso to the arms.."
after switching the lasers with the ppcs the next shock
"whoooooot... why are there t1ts on my catapult??"
I checked my k2 what they did with the ballistics.
"Phew k ballistics looking good letz check the Missles" ... "WTF? What happened to my splatapult?? Even 3xssrm2 make it to this bulgy monster?...."
This day was the last day where my catapults saw a battlefield. Even the Jester getting some dust.

They did such a great work with the hunchback and all the other mechs... but why looks the catapult now so ugly?

#39 Shiro Matsumoto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Boombox
  • The Boombox
  • 492 posts
  • Locationon "The island"

Posted 13 January 2014 - 12:58 AM

Old PPCs looked better.. though lot bigger than arm-mount PPCs on other mechs.

New ones let me question why the arm behind the barrel stays so big. Voted "Yes".

#40 Ryoken

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 744 posts
  • LocationEuropa, Terra

Posted 13 January 2014 - 06:29 AM

Well maybe they let us pick the grafic model optional. Like some manufacturers ppcs are in deed more bulky than the other. IIRC it is even said in the orig. TRO3025 that not all ppc's have the same dimensions.

Edited by Ryoken, 13 January 2014 - 06:29 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users