470 replies to this topic

[myke]

K2 is my favorite mech, I still have my K2 with me though it looks pretty lame now ) Bring back the old K2's!! or give us a free madcat

[Jet Black Dog]

I'm still trying to visualize what a Locust with a ppc would really LOOK like.
It's over 1/3 it's weight?!
It would be more lopsided than the original hunchbacks!

[Mcgral18]

zudukai, on 19 April 2014 - 10:49 PM, said:

shown here are Ultra AC2's

these Ultra AC fires a pair of shots over 0.25 seconds,

this is the idea pitched queaff?

Essentially, yes.

[FireSlade]

Tetra One, on 20 April 2014 - 01:58 AM, said:

Yeah and I kinda want to keep my main weapons for as long as possible....main reason i do not pilot cats...ears are so easy to take off...and main reason i go for them first (except dual ac20/gauss)...

It is faster and smarter to aim for the cockpit on Catapults; if you miss then you take out the CT and you just may get that lucky headshot. Because of this, it is rarely a worry to lose your main weapons. I love Catapults (except the A1) and you would be surprised just how versatile and tough that they can be (as long as you keep moving).

[Cimarb]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 April 2014 - 07:17 PM, said:

define burst fire...it is multiple projectiles, yes? Hence, it;s DoT unless they are all damaging at once?

It's all a matter of definition, as I said. If you define a DoT as "anything that does damage over time", all weapons are DoTs. If you define it as "anything that you pull the trigger once and it does damage over a duration", this would include lasers and some missiles (if the tube count is less than the missile count), as well as burst-fire and tube-based ballistic proposals. If you define it by the gaming definition of DoT, though, which is "anything that applies an affect that continues to damage without further application", then no, it isn't. Since a burst-fire autocannon has to be held on target to continue doing damage, it would be essentially the same mechanic as existing AC2s and AC5s have - sustained direct damage. The only difference is the amount of damage from each projectile.

BTW, I really liked the idea about having the weapon being one size, and the housing it is located in being determined by the chassis design (with extra durability based upon that).

[Bishop Steiner]

Cimarb, on 20 April 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

It's all a matter of definition, as I said. If you define a DoT as "anything that does damage over time", all weapons are DoTs. If you define it as "anything that you pull the trigger once and it does damage over a duration", this would include lasers and some missiles (if the tube count is less than the missile count), as well as burst-fire and tube-based ballistic proposals. If you define it by the gaming definition of DoT, though, which is "anything that applies an affect that continues to damage without further application", then no, it isn't. Since a burst-fire autocannon has to be held on target to continue doing damage, it would be essentially the same mechanic as existing AC2s and AC5s have - sustained direct damage. The only difference is the amount of damage from each projectile.

BTW, I really liked the idea about having the weapon being one size, and the housing it is located in being determined by the chassis design (with extra durability based upon that).

Still not in love with it. I like how it was offered as an option for "sub-class" mechs to mount one.... for instance a 35 tonner probably would not be able to handle the recoil form a single slug ac20. SO on it, I would say, yeah, burst fire version.

[Turist0AT]

Jin Ma, on 17 April 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

they RUINED one of the best looking mechs in the game

Its not the only thing they ruined.

[Cimarb]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 April 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

Still not in love with it. I like how it was offered as an option for "sub-class" mechs to mount one.... for instance a 35 tonner probably would not be able to handle the recoil form a single slug ac20. SO on it, I would say, yeah, burst fire version.

Personally, I am just trying to get some variety in the game, so people that want their BFG still have an option, while those of us that want Gatling gun versions can choose to have increased DPS over FLD, but still keeping things balanced and lore-friendly.

Along the same lines, I think it would be great if the different manufacturer variants of weapons looked different as well. For instance, if you like the large-lens, heavy insulation/armored cowling PPC look, you would just equip the manufacturer version that gave that look on your K2 and call it good, while someone that wants a sleeker, less reinforced but harder to hit version could equip that on their K2 instead. I want customizability, especially if it allows us to make each of our mechs completely unique.

The more variety you give along these variables, the easier it will be to balance, actually, because you will have hundreds of micro-differences, instead of huge, game-wide changes for the only PPC available. Having trouble with the Nozdormu AC20? Change it's numbers slightly without affecting the other 15 AC20 variants.

[Haakon Magnusson]

Mercier, on 20 April 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

I'm still trying to visualize what a Locust with a ppc would really LOOK like.
It's over 1/3 it's weight?!
It would be more lopsided than the original hunchbacks!

actually it is made from the heart of a neutronstar... Pretty much size of a mg, I mean silly if it took half a torso or whatever(hollander)

[Bishop Steiner]

Haakon Magnusson, on 21 April 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

actually it is made from the heart of a neutronstar... Pretty much size of a mg, I mean silly if it took half a torso or whatever(hollander)

still not sillier than having pee shooter sized PPCs like in the Firestarter.

but on the right is how it SHOULD look (though notice how much larger the actual in game model's PPC is than the one on the firestarter. Lazy Coding is BAD PGI), though IMO, a mech like a locust or commando, maybe even Spider, should only be able to mount a 7+ ton gun in a side torso.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 21 April 2014 - 09:18 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yup. Pt 3 in my continuing crusade against the horrific generic in game weapon modeling PGI has been lazily forcing on us. In my K2/PPC post, one commenter mentioned the PPC size on the locust, so I built a scale comparison model.


PPC barrel is 33% greater in diameter on the Locust, and much longer, at least 2x.

Mind you, I think it is silly small on BOTH models, hence the far right, where I again do PGI's job for them by demonstrating how it SHOULD look on a locust.

for further posts on PGIs scale issues:
K2
http://mwomercs.com/...me-models-back/
"Future" Awesome
http://mwomercs.com/...ometry-awesome/

Is it a game breaking issue like heat and weapon balance, pinpoint convergence or hard points? No, but then those are all handled by different coders in different departments, thus keep your whinging about priorities to a low roar, shall we? I can assure you that I am fully cognizant of those issues, too. They don't dismiss this one, in the least.

I think anyone but a MinMax uber comp player worried about nothing but hitbox size (which in few cases do large arms hurt a mech... unless you are a Catapult Missile Boat, though their fix is a matter of shrinking them by losing the VCRs.) would agree we would like more of our mechs to look less silly?

[AlmightyAeng]

Yeah...weapon scaling is dumb...but...when you allow weapons of any size in any hardpoint of the right type...I understand WHY they did it.

It just doesn't make sense of Battletech/Mechwarrior and looks ridiculous on small mechs.

[AllSpark]

Ghost Badger, on 21 April 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

Yeah...weapon scaling is dumb...but...when you allow weapons of any size in any hardpoint of the right type...I understand WHY they did it.

It just doesn't make sense of Battletech/Mechwarrior and looks ridiculous on small mechs.

I think the large PPC on that locust looks cool. You can always think that the barrel on that PPC is made of some ultra light polymer and the heavier components are closer to the RT so that the little locust won't tip over from its weight.

I vote for larger PPCs on every mech.

Edited by AllSpark, 21 April 2014 - 09:49 AM.

[DerMaulwurf]

The PPC makes up more than a third of a locust's weight. It should look damn huge.

[Rhaythe]

This is to avoid competitive disadvantages. Because honestly, anyone that sees a Locust coming at them with that thing on the right is going to die laughing.

[Bishop Steiner]

and how the PPC should probably look on the FS9


yes, I know one could not mount 2 ppcs, or 3, lord help you, this way. Why would you want to tho? (Even if you want 2 PPC it makes way more sense to put them on the opposite arms. Lights make crap poptarts)

[xCico]

I understand that look isnt very good on every mech and weapons also, but really, is that so big problem? I would rather solve current game problems like srms, weight balance and all that than mech look, that wont hurt no one, I would rather leave look later after PGI solve all problems then look!

[Bishop Steiner]

Almighty Cico, on 21 April 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

I understand that look isnt very good on every mech and weapons also, but really, is that so big problem? I would rather solve current game problems like srms, weight balance and all that than mech look, that wont hurt no one, I would rather leave look later after PGI solve all problems then look!

Cico, those are handled by TOTALLY different departments bro. Game Modelers design in game models, nothing more. They don't do weapon balance or game mechanics coding. AKA, it's not taking away from the resources to solve the other issues. (As I pointed out in the OP).

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 21 April 2014 - 09:57 AM.

[xCico]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 April 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

Cico, those are handled by TOTALLY different departments bro. Game Modelers design in game models, nothing more. They don't do weapon balance or game mechanics coding. AKA, it's not taking away from the resources to solve the other issues. (As I pointed out in the OP).

Yeah, but you know PGI? More work they are more slower in doing current stuffs...

[-Natural Selection-]

Kinda how I look at it and the comparison has nothing to do with the game.


Using motorcycles to compare:

My zx14 turbo and Hayabusa turbo I fitted both turbo systems under the bodywork and could barely tell they were there. On other bikes more of the system was visible due to space factors.

I have seen installs on the same bikes I have raced/built that looked like blenders sticking out the side.

So I guess my point would be, unless it is the same exact chasis with the same exact voids for mounting, and modified by the same person using the same exact technology at the time given (have no idea what the lore is on mech building) They probably would never be the exact same from mech to mech.

Hell IDK, what I said made sense to me lmao