1
With that out of the way, let’s begin.
One of the things I feel is a common sentiment among the players I know is that when it comes to visuals, missile hardpoints in particular stand out as looking incredibly janky. Massive black boxes popping up on the model, huge flat surfaces with two or four tubes in the middle, launchers split up in weird ways.
Personally, I think that the main issue here is that for every missile mounted, a new hardpoint is taken up on the model. This means that missiles are put into positions where they look off, small launchers put in big boxes, big launchers in small boxes, boxes not utilised optimally etc.
My solution to this problem is simple: Make visual representation dependent on tubes, not hardpoints.
This would mean that launcher boxes are not filled by individual missiles, but filled up until they’re full, and only then the next box is added. I understand that this could require big coding and maybe even modelling changes and work, which could prohibit these changes. As such I will split up the solution into three different approaches, needing more or less changes to make work.
The first option would be to take already existing models and combining missile tubes to fill launchers up. This could be done by adding up the amount of tubes a missile launcher has and checking if a model for that number is available. As an example, an SRM-2 and an SRM-2 combine to 4 tubes, meaning that the model for a single SRM-4 can be used for those two launchers.
This can also be done with more than one launcher, for example four LRM-5s combine up to 20 tubes, meaning that the model for an LRM-20 or MRM-20 can be used.
With this principle, multiple missile systems can be added up too, an MRM-10, two LRM-5s and an SRM-4 with an SRM-6 add up to thirty tubes, leading to the model of an MRM-30.
The issue that comes up now is that there are models not available for all tubes, for example an LRM-15 and SRM-6 add up to 21 tubes, and with no 21-tube missile launcher available, there is no way to really make them work. In this instance, I would keep the currently existing solution and just split the two missiles into different boxes again, so one box carries the LRM-15 and another the SRM-6.
Likewise, I’d also suggest that a combination of missiles that is too large for a single box is split up too, so an LRM-20 and LRM-10 get split up too if the box only has a model for 20 tubes available.
The second option would be taking the mechanics of the first option, but widen the range of models available for each technology base. For example, an Inner Sphere mech utilising two SRM-6s would not have a model available to make the two fit and they’d have to be split up. Clans on the other hand have the two SRM-6s combine into a singular ATM-12 model. The solution here is to model Clan missiles on Inner Sphere mechs and vice versa. For example, two IS LRM-20s combine to an MRM-40, but two Clan LRM-20s would be split up. ATMs in particular would help a lot of IS mechs using SRMs, since they have quite a bit of overlap, such as two SRM-6s, an SRM-4 and LRM-5, or three SRM-4s.
The third option would be to create all new models for the launchers which are built around the tube count rather than hardpoints. That way missile tubes can be spread and placed in such a way to create the most aesthetically pleasing combination for all sorts of launcher setups. This would cause the most work, no doubt, but promises some of the best results. Personally, I don’t see it as a feasible option, unless minor changes are made to existing launchers. What is a 9-tube launcher other than an MRM-10 with one tube blocked out, after all? With that in mind, quite a few small tweaks could be made to improve the overall compactness of launchers, but it would still require a mountain of work.
In conclusion, I’d say that while this isn’t the most pressing issue, I feel like there could be relatively minor changes done with the first or second option that go a long way in making mechs look better overall, with more sensible missile layouts and generally more compact builds. I hope this post sparks a bit of discussion, I’d be glad to listen to your ideas and suggestions. If a member of the PGI team reads this, I hope it provides a bit of inspiration to do something in this direction, even if I don’t expect any part of this to be worked in directly. Naturally there are arguments to keep different launcher types in different locations, or perhaps allow Mechwarriors to choose if they want compact or spread launchers, but I think this could be discussed in the replies.
Thanks for reading, one and all, I hope it got the noggin’ joggin’ and that you most of all enjoyed your time with it.
Good hunting Mechwarriors,
Julo
