1726 replies to this topic

[Captain Stiffy]

If they do this to my Stalker I am seriously quitting.

[Ngamok]

Captain Stiffy, on 08 November 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

If they do this to my Stalker I am seriously quitting.

I think you are safe as none of the Stalkers have more than 1 missile hardpoint in the arms. The 5M has two in the LT though.

[Viges]

[ArmageddonKnight]

This is sooo funy.

i have always said that the physical size of weapons should matter. So you couldnt chuck on huge weapons or loads of them on certain mechs becouse they physicaly couldnt fit them. But u can ..and this is due to the completly unrestricted hardpoitn system.

So what does PGI do? .. Do they restrict hardpoints so they match the mechs physical frame ?

NOPE ! ofcourse not this is PGI !!!

instead they put in even mroe time to create all new graphical module system that changes depending on the weapon installed. Not enough room ? no problem here have more mech to fit stuff in.
And ths is the result.


PGI ..really ? this isnt April 1st. WTF are u thinking.

you dont chaneg the way mechs looks so drasticaly. Stick to BT lore ffs. if a mech like the catapult is suposed to have anything other than a Missile launcher in its 'ear's then so be it, let its model change, but if its meant to have x number of missles in its ears, change the number of tubes, dont go bolting thignso n the side that comeplty destroys the original design look of the mech.

Anyway back to hardpoint restrictions. Not only would it have made this a non issue, it would have helped ALOT in balancing the game and helping to reduce the stupid skilless alpha meta. ofc it wouldnt stop it without other changes aswell like convergance,, but thats another story.

PGi u keep making stupid decision after stupid decision, keep it up and u wont have a player base to dissapoint

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 08 November 2013 - 10:39 AM.

[Prezimonto]

GalaxyBluestar, on 06 November 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

justify my trololol builds"

Anytime someone writes trololol I can't help but think of this:

[Captain Stiffy]

Prezimonto, on 08 November 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Anytime someone writes trololol I can't help but think of this:

This thread is going to a dark place.

[Cest7]

Shadey99, on 08 November 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

They actually cannot. Even though the appear outside, they still suffer from door delay as if they were inside it.

O m f g this thread just gets better!!

Lets slap a bunch of doodads on the outside of the cat and call it a day.

I wonder if the modellers/artists went come feeling successful after this change to the cat?
Sure as hell hope not...

[Rizzelbizzeg]

Yea... hmmm... das uggo. Not a fan of the bolt on launchers. I thought the way the Battlemaster got all sorts of extra missile boxes everywhere was a little silly but I was ok with it. However this on the cat is just... bad.

semi-relevant side note: I can't wait to see the Awesome with 3 long, skinny ppc barrels sticking way out of its chest instead of the classy ports it has now. Man will that be silly willy lookin (Anyone with the MSPaint skills to pay the bills wanna mock that up for me to chuckle at?)

[Captain Stiffy]

I told my friend who hasn't played MWO in 8 months about these changes and he gave me the

"Waaaaaaa?"

I was like yeah, that pretty much is the common reaction.

I wonder how much someone's parents paid for art school so that this could happen.

Edited by Captain Stiffy, 08 November 2013 - 03:03 PM.

[Dagger6T6]

For what ever reason this art decision was made I do not know. But to me it looks more like Mechwarrior Tactics mechs than it Does Alex's art we are used to for MWO.

[MrBlonde42]

To some a certain degree, the designers have logic on their side. If the Cat A1's arm was designed for a single LRM 15 in each arm. Additional missile weapons should be added to the arms. Also, just because the A1 has 3 missile hard points per arm, doesn't mean all 3 are in the protected cover area. Dynamic models help us see if a mech is running 3 AC/2s or 2 LB10Xs. PPCs look different than lasers (lasers look the same to me until fired), why should it be different for missiles?

On the other hand, a six LRM 5 and six SSRM2 A1 builds look ridiculous with the new model. Is that what they're going for? Shaming us for using all the hard points by making the arms look horrible?
For looks, I liked the old arm models, If I had two LRM 15s on the same arm I figured there was a Y tube pairing the launchers and the exit tube. An LRM20 in a 15 tube launcher was similar but, the Y is such as 5 pairs of the 20's missiles share an exit tube, and thus fire in two volleys.

In my opinion, revert to the old PPC model for K2s, keep the new dynamic ballistics, and find a compromise between the old and new missile models.

[Warge]

MrBlonde42, on 08 November 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

In my opinion, revert to the old PPC model for K2s, keep the new dynamic ballistics, and find a compromise between the old and new missile models.

Fixed tube's max number for each missile hardpoint...

Edited by Warge, 08 November 2013 - 05:37 PM.

[Tor6]

If they made this (stupid, stupid) change to make it less work to do new skins for the model then WHY DID THEY CHANGE THE FOUNDERS CAT?!?! Stupid, so stupid! It can only have one texture with different colors. Way to make the Founder's Cat uglier a second time PGI. Jesus...

[Deathlike]

It's obvious this entire Catapult "missile ear" needs to be rethought in its overall entirety.

Here would be my rule of thumb:

There should be a basic minimum size of the Catapult's racks. They should be arranged in 3 or 4 different capacities.
15 - smallest size, even if you don't put missiles in it (C1, should use the old racks)
30 - mid-size, probably 15-33% increase for each dimension (based on the original C1 racks), increasing the overall volume a bit
45 - largest size, probably 25-50% increase for each dimension (based on the original C1 racks)

Or..
10 - Smallest size (even smaller than the old C1 racks)
20 - Average size (using the old C1 launcher size)
30/32 - Large size (using the old C4 launcher size)
45 - Largest size (probably 10-15% increase in the overall rack size of the C4).

That should work out for most cases. Let's not get into how it should look when MRMs are involved, but this is close enough IMO.

[Daekar]

Deathlike, on 08 November 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

It's obvious this entire Catapult "missile ear" needs to be rethought in its overall entirety.

Here would be my rule of thumb:

There should be a basic minimum size of the Catapult's racks. They should be arranged in 3 or 4 different capacities.
15 - smallest size, even if you don't put missiles in it (C1, should use the old racks)
30 - mid-size, probably 15-33% increase for each dimension (based on the original C1 racks), increasing the overall volume a bit
45 - largest size, probably 25-50% increase for each dimension (based on the original C1 racks)

Or..
10 - Smallest size (even smaller than the old C1 racks)
20 - Average size (using the old C1 launcher size)
30/32 - Large size (using the old C4 launcher size)
45 - Largest size (probably 10-15% increase in the overall rack size of the C4).

That should work out for most cases. Let's not get into how it should look when MRMs are involved, but this is close enough IMO.

This. This is constructive feedback, and you should listen to it. Please?

[Captain Stiffy]

Cest7, on 08 November 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

O m f g this thread just gets better!!

It really starts picking up steam around page 11.

[Woozle]

Wow. Just when I thought MW:O had been through the worst and was getting better. I mean, I've been here since very early in Closed Beta and I have seen some sh*t.

Gonna quit playing now. If this isn't fixed in the next month, I'm gonna uninstall and PGI will never get another cent from me.

Just f*cking unbelievable.

[Endarius]

I think you're pretty much asking to die in the A1 anyway. It's utterly useless except MAYBE in a 12 man team where you can count on backup of some kind. Even then there's far better options for missile support setups, including other catapult variants.

[Malleus011]

Actually, I did fairly well recently running an SRM6 Splatcat. I did fairly good in solo PUGs setting up the launchers in two groups of three and staggering them to avoid pernicious Ghost Heat.

Against high-end teams, yeah, the launchers are wrecked in seconds. But in PUGs it's still pretty deadly.

Of course, the Dumbo Launchers it has now would be worse ... which is why I'm not using it.

[Tooooonpie]

I think it comes down to them wanting all LRM based Catapults to have the same mesh and arm size so that when releasing paint jobs and other customisation in the future (such as decals), they only have to do one mesh instead of two.

The problem with this is, they should have used the C1 and A1 sized launchers - If they were to do this, I would be more than happy to have SRM's on the outside of the missile bay, since then it would equate to the same size of the C4 launcher.

I personally think this is a middle ground where both players and PGI can be happy, but at this point all we can do is suggest this and hope they agree!

Posted this to the Patch Feedback since I think this is realistically a change that PGI might consider: http://mwomercs.com/...everyone-happy/

Edited by Tooooonpie, 09 November 2013 - 04:48 AM.