1726 replies to this topic

[Brody319]

plz pgi, plz stop hating the catapult. just give it some decent quirks.

[Ratpoison]

XphR, on 12 February 2015 - 08:18 PM, said:

Only instead of blue paint the artist used feces.

You guys carry that attitude and wonder why you've been ignored for 15 months and 60 pages. Funny.

[Sorbic]

tortuousGoddess, on 09 February 2015 - 07:20 PM, said:

*cough*

"similar to telling a paint artist..." That analogy falls flat with the fact that people had paid for the Cat's before they made the change. A more apt analogy would be to say that it's similar to telling an interior designer to go back and change it to the original agreed upon layout...

[Ratpoison]

Sorbic, on 12 February 2015 - 10:58 PM, said:

"similar to telling a paint artist..." That analogy falls flat with the fact that people had paid for the Cat's before they made the change. A more apt analogy would be to say that it's similar to telling an interior designer to go back and change it to the original agreed upon layout...

Same argument people use when anything gets nerfed and they demand a refund, and just as irrelevant. PGI's art team decided to design the mechs with visible representations of equipped weapons that are made to look uniform, and paying to support the earlier, incomplete versions of them doesn't entitle you to any say in that. The analogy fits.

[XphR]

tortuousGoddess, on 12 February 2015 - 09:34 PM, said:

You guys carry that attitude and wonder why you've been ignored for 15 months and 60 pages. Funny.

I disagree.

[Navid A1]

MATRAKA14, on 09 February 2015 - 02:25 PM, said:

This post has got an official answer.

http://mwomercs.com/...n-recent-mechs/

I'm really glad for them, the thread has a good point, they have achieved a complete official answer about the thread.

I'm thinking about what diferences have the 2 threads,

The animation one has 74 replies and 5694, and only 4 pages, thats a really small thread compared to this one, what are we doing wrong? maybe its because the animation one affects to newer mechs or clan mechs? maybe they really think the catapult its ok as it is? i'm really intrigued about all this, seriusly.

Oh... I can tell you that it was not that simple

getting an official answer involved me sending PMs to paul and russ a couple of times. tweeting on russ's twitter 3 times, mentioning it once every three minutes in the town hall event, posting it on reddit and sending feedback emails to "feedback@piranhagames.com"
it paid off.

bumping the thread does not really make it. Make sure to get the attention of some key figures like russ. (even then, you can only hope that he actually agree with the thread if he see it)

Catapult launchers need a lot of refinement i think. modular launchers inside the box ( as it was presented here ) was a nice suggestion.

Edited by Navid A1, 13 February 2015 - 01:08 AM.

[Sorbic]

tortuousGoddess, on 12 February 2015 - 11:15 PM, said:

Same argument people use when anything gets nerfed and they demand a refund, and just as irrelevant. PGI's art team decided to design the mechs with visible representations of equipped weapons that are made to look uniform, and paying to support the earlier, incomplete versions of them doesn't entitle you to any say in that. The analogy fits.

Just because certain people choose to dismiss it doesn't make it irrelevant. It wasn't incomplete, just a different direction and the analogy is terribly flawed. It's pretends that people are just randomly criticizing an artist which is very clearly not the case. I'm not saying PGI can't make changes just pointing out that particular argument does not work unless you chose to ignore the inconvenient bits.

[Tolkien]

Sorbic, on 13 February 2015 - 06:18 AM, said:

Just because certain people choose to dismiss it doesn't make it irrelevant. It wasn't incomplete, just a different direction and the analogy is terribly flawed. It's pretends that people are just randomly criticizing an artist which is very clearly not the case. I'm not saying PGI can't make changes just pointing out that particular argument does not work unless you chose to ignore the inconvenient bits.

If anything their decision to make mechs show what weapons they have equipped is an interesting one that potentially adds to counter-play possibilities since your scouts can now visually read loadout rather than having to hold a target for several seconds to get the info.

That said, I have to heartily complain about the way this was done on the catapult which has at least three major sticking points:

1) It can make the profile extremely big, which is a competitive concern.
2) It has those massive boxes on its shoulders already that can hold 20 tubes... it's a conceptual nightmare that they don't slot these inside there.
2) It looks kludgy - it's not in keeping with the visual aesthetic of the rest of the game. Instead the Catapult stands out as a kitbash where extra boxes have been glued on to the original model.

The concept of visually dynamic weapons is great, the catapult chassis is great, but the combination is rancid. It's similar to a nice plate of sushi and a nice fruit smoothie- on their own they have charm and desirability.... blended together it's a horrifying concoction similar to what we have with the bonus missile VCRs taped on to the catapult.

[CDLord HHGD]

I agree with a couple of the above statements. Yes, we all dislike the changes. This thread is about petitioning PGI to change it back or similar....

But we are mostly adults, people, addressing professionals in their respective fields. To insinuate that the artist used poo is not a mature way to move forward. If I was that artist, I'd totally disregard any "opinion" the poo commenters have going forward.

Having passion is fine. Being annoyed and even pissed off is fine. Insulting a professional's work is childish and does not foster good collaboration.

[zagibu]

The problem is that they took the easy way, and the result is even worse than before. They didn't heed the "do it right, or don't do it at all" proverb.

[Ratpoison]

Sorbic, on 13 February 2015 - 06:18 AM, said:

It wasn't incomplete

The C4 and the A1 had fake laser mounts on them prior to the update, the torso being copied directly from the C1. Sounds incomplete to me, especially since PGI is intending to put the dynamic weapons on all of the mechs.

Sorbic, on 13 February 2015 - 06:18 AM, said:

people are just randomly criticizing an artist which is very clearly not the case

Uh no, that's EXACTLY what this topic is. People are criticizing a detail applied to the artistic interpretation of the chassis, which, lest we forget, has been entirely different in nearly every game it has appeared in. Everyone has their own opinions on how it should look, and I'm sure those who don't like PGI's version can find details they hate about some of the others:







Nobody ever seems to call for a return to the blimp torsos though. The outcry over this one small detail, exclusive to this game's ability to attach multiple launchers, is ridiculously overblown.

[XphR]

cdlord, on 13 February 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

I agree with a couple of the above statements. Yes, we all dislike the changes. This thread is about petitioning PGI to change it back or similar....

But we are mostly adults, people, addressing professionals in their respective fields. To insinuate that the artist used poo is not a mature way to move forward. If I was that artist, I'd totally disregard any "opinion" the poo commenters have going forward.

Having passion is fine. Being annoyed and even pissed off is fine. Insulting a professional's work is childish and does not foster good collaboration.

Ill cordially apologize to the artist if I find it necessary(shoot me a PM if you are out there and feel hurt by my statement{or are not hurt but would like to hear it anyway}, I would gladly welcome them to e-mail exchange, skype, pm, snail mail or phone call). I did not pick the analogy, I merely put it a bit more in perspective with my feelings on the subject. However it would not be the first time feces was used in an artistic setting (literally and figuratively). If you cant manage to get past it.. well then I can only wish you the best in what is a cruel and dangerous world, you have much more than myself to be concerned with.

[531st]

Dunno if it is still catapult but with those ears it can sure be called "fennec"

[MATRAKA14]

It's impossible to guess the catapult A1 weapons just by looking at the launchers, you are not going to count the tubes and the extra launchers are difficult to differentiate, also with the same rule the king crab needs more external ballistics and just one in the claw.

[Ratpoison]

MATRAKA14, on 16 February 2015 - 07:19 AM, said:

It's impossible to guess the catapult A1 weapons just by looking at the launchers, you are not going to count the tubes and the extra launchers are difficult to differentiate, also with the same rule the king crab needs more external ballistics and just one in the claw.

Of course you can. If they've got pods on the inner sides, they've got streaks. If they've got pods on the outer sides and they're in the back, they've got LRM5's. If they've got pods on the outer sides and they're up front with brawlers, it's a splatcat. If they have both with no underside launcher, they've got quad LRM10's. I can read the builds on these things just fine.

[MeiSooHaityu]

We keep talking about artistic vision. Even the response from customer support defends the changes as artistic vision.

Thing is, I'm not sure that is really the case.

I BELIEVE that the original closed beta design is artistic vision, and any design changes that have come since are compromises put in place to facilitate dynamic weapon presentation.

I'm confident that if weapon hard point design of game release would have been though of back in closed beta, the ears we have on the Catapult A1 would look far different than they do now (and for the better as the design would surely make more sense).

Problem is, this dynamic weapon presentation on mechs came later and had to be retrofitted into old designs. Most changes were OK, not great, but OK. It just wasn't kind to the Catapult.

Basically, I don't buy the artistic vision argument for the A1 ears. The artist made his ideal Catapult a long time ago, and politics and changes in game design altered that vision long before we are asking for an alteration to fix what we got.

Changing the ears of the A1 probably puts the Cat's design more inline with the artist's vision then what we have now.

[Ratpoison]

MeiSooHaityu, on 16 February 2015 - 07:35 AM, said:

We keep talking about artistic vision. Even the response from customer support defends the changes as artistic vision.

Thing is, I'm not sure that is really the case.

I BELIEVE that the original closed beta design is artistic vision, and any design changes that have come since are compromises put in place to facilitate dynamic weapon presentation.

I'm confident that if weapon hard point design of game release would have been though of back in closed beta, the ears we have on the Catapult A1 would look far different than they do now (and for the better as the design would surely make more sense).

Problem is, this dynamic weapon presentation on mechs came later and had to be retrofitted into old designs. Most changes were OK, not great, but OK. It just wasn't kind to the Catapult.

Basically, I don't buy the artistic vision argument for the A1 ears. The artist made his ideal Catapult a long time ago, and politics and changes in game design altered that vision long before we are asking for an alteration to fix what we got.

Changing the ears of the A1 probably puts the Cat's design more inline with the artist's vision then what we have now.

Uh, you're definitely not in any position to shove so many words into PGI's mouth, especially when that mouth already disagreed with you. You're just letting your bias get away from you now.

[MeiSooHaityu]

tortuousGoddess, on 16 February 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

Uh, you're definitely not in any position to shove so many words into PGI's mouth, especially when that mouth already disagreed with you. You're just letting your bias get away from you now.

I think my statement is a legitimate hypothesis to consider. Honestly your blatant lack of consideration of it (especially when it can be seen as plausible) demonstrates that you are the one being very biased yourself.

I'm not stating what I said as fact, I'm voicing my belief on the situation (especially when it seems to make sense). A belief is just that though. I don't know what goes on there and behind their closed doors anymore than you do.

I just see a design decision like dynamic hard points being implemented late in the game and a design staff given a short window to implement it. That means consideration to design intent is shoved aside to allow chassis to conform to the new rules.

I don't feel I am being terribly biased, I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes to look for a possible reason to why we have these big A1 ears with such an odd and cobbled design.

I just don't agree that the designer of the Catapult (and a great design it is) would feel those ears fit in with what he feels a Catapult should look like. That's my opinion on it, and others can feel free to agree or disagree.

[Ratpoison]

MeiSooHaityu, on 16 February 2015 - 08:01 AM, said:

I think my statement is a legitimate hypothesis to consider. Honestly your blatant lack of consideration of it (especially when it can be seen as plausible) demonstrates that you are the one being very biased yourself.

I'm not stating what I said as fact, I'm voicing my belief on the situation (especially when it seems to make sense). A belief is just that though. I don't know what goes on there and behind their closed doors anymore than you do.

I just see a design decision like dynamic hard points being implemented late in the game and a design staff given a short window to implement it. That means consideration to design intent is shoved aside to allow chassis to conform to the new rules.

I don't feel I am being terribly biased, I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes to look for a possible reason to why we have these big A1 ears with such an odd and cobbled design.

I just don't agree that the designer of the Catapult (and a great design it is) would feel those ears fit in with what he feels a Catapult should look like. That's my opinion on it, and others can feel free to agree or disagree.

Insisting that the artist was strongarmed into making what he did and that PGI is covering it up really doesn't come off as anything but wild, biased speculation. Yes, you're free to wear the tinfoil, but I'm also free to think you look ridiculous.

[MeiSooHaityu]

tortuousGoddess, on 16 February 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

Insisting that the artist was strongarmed into making what he did and that PGI is covering it up really doesn't come off as anything but wild, biased speculation. Yes, you're free to wear the tinfoil, but I'm also free to think you look ridiculous.

Lol, whatever.

I'll wear the tinfoil, you be the Lemming .