470 replies to this topic

[Amsro]

Same Size Weapon Models For ALL!

+1 to the idea

+1 to Dennis, here I was thinking Niko was the only one browsing the forums regularly! Hmm there must be more of you lurking! Nice to see more communication! The new forum layout must be helping.

Edited by Amsro, 22 April 2014 - 01:42 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 22 April 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:

Double-take: At the request of Bishop Steiner, I've merged his two threads on these related matters to help ensure the conversation stays together.

many thanks Nikolai! Will probably move many of my postings to the OP at some point tonight.

[Clit Beastwood]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 April 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

that really will be itty bitty PPC nipples.....

I just *rocketed* monster energy drink out of my nose. I'll be sneezing out rock candy for a week!

[Thunder Lips Express]

Jin Ma, on 16 April 2014 - 10:11 PM, said:

dude, thats slick!

[Bishop Steiner]

falknir, on 22 April 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:

I would like to take a moment to remind everyone here pointing out design inconsistencies. In BattleTech lore, many of the weapon systems are manufactured by many different organizations and then grouped into generic weapon classes based on end-performance. These many weapon models from these different manufacturers can have a completely different approach to reach the (for example) AC/5 or PPC weapon-classification with very different rates of fire, caliber, salvo counts, etc.

Right now, MWO uses the very generic weapon-classification as the sole weapon of choose. It is very likely until they introduce specific models, we will see that weapon design inconsistency between mechs will remain. Love it or hate it, this has been an issue in multiple games based on the BattleTech IP.

different manufacturers are fine. a 7 ton gun is still a 7 ton gun. Different manufacturers do not explain 10x size difference.

[Cimarb]

Dennis de Koning, on 22 April 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

Like I mentioned though, things will even out as we get the bandwidth to work on them; you will not see a global change over night.
Trust me, we will address all 'Mechs in turn.
This system of standardization is relatively new and it takes time to retrofit.

I appreciate you answering, Dennis. With you and Karl, the community really is starting to cheer up and be more positive. I'm not sure where Art and Design differ, but I would love to get some Design input in regards to the post in my signature - any chance you could pass that on or address it yourself?

That being said...

You mentioned that standardization is relatively new, but Bishop is using two of the newest examples (Banshee and Firestarter), which have drastic issues with this. The Catapult was fine before the revision pass, and I don't think I have seen anyone actually say they like the new geometry, so that worries me that future weapon scaling will be just as bad. The weapon weighs the same and takes up the same amount of critical slots regardless of what mech it is equipped upon, so why is it scaled down in appearance on smaller mechs?

[Cimarb]

Dennis de Koning, on 22 April 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

Assuming the largest is 100%, the smallest would be ~92%.
If my memory serves, I believe the values are similar to this: L[90-92.4], M[92.6-95.4], H[95.6-98.4], A[98.6-101]
These are extremes as in some cases the scaling will be almost unnoticeable.
As for missiles, all missile ports will be the same size, only the depth of the boxes will vary.

DdK

I'm still confused on this, sorry.

Are you saying the scaling is within 1-4%/class in comparison to the mech, or in comparison to the two weapons?

For instance, is the PPC on the Firestarter within 12% of the size of the PPC on the Banshee, or within 12% of the RELATIVE size between the Firestarter and Banshee (i.e. does it get scaled down, and THEN adjusted within 12%?)?

[SweetJackal]

@ Dennis: Thank you for the reply to this, just to say that this is on the radar and that you're looking at dealing with it when higher priority projects aren't eating up the bandwidth, as you put it, really goes a long way to settling down the community. Open discussion and more transparency are good things and it makes me hopeful every time, even if I am a bit jaded since being burned by PGi several times in the past.

Still, the art team works hard and I'm happy for that. Sometimes they slip (in my opinion. Centurion and Banshee Revisit! ) but very often they hit the mark like they did on the Griffin, Thunderbolt, Shadowhawk and hell, even the original Hunchback. There is a lot of sexy mech porn in the game

[GalaxyBluestar]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

THIS is the stock 3025 TRO image of the Urbanmech


THIS is an Urbanmech with the AC10 scaled down to the same degree as the differential between the Banshee and the Firestarter's PPCs.

now you have permission to call urbie an laughable mech.

[Bishop Steiner]

SuckyJack, on 22 April 2014 - 07:15 PM, said:

@ Dennis: Thank you for the reply to this, just to say that this is on the radar and that you're looking at dealing with it when higher priority projects aren't eating up the bandwidth, as you put it, really goes a long way to settling down the community. Open discussion and more transparency are good things and it makes me hopeful every time, even if I am a bit jaded since being burned by PGi several times in the past.

Still, the art team works hard and I'm happy for that. Sometimes they slip (in my opinion. Centurion and Banshee Revisit! ) but very often they hit the mark like they did on the Griffin, Thunderbolt, Shadowhawk and hell, even the original Hunchback. There is a lot of sexy mech porn in the game

ShadowHawk is sexy? It's a favorite to play, but not sure I would call it sexy. Now I like the Cent. And the Griff and the HBK are fabulous.

ShadowHawk
Banshee
Wolverine
Trebuchet

now those 4....they need something. Not 100% sure what, but something.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

ShadowHawk
Banshee
Wolverine
Trebuchet

now those 4....they need something. Not 100% sure what, but something.

cowbell... definately more cowbell.

[SweetJackal]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

ShadowHawk is sexy? It's a favorite to play, but not sure I would call it sexy. Now I like the Cent. And the Griff and the HBK are fabulous.

ShadowHawk
Banshee
Wolverine
Trebuchet

now those 4....they need something. Not 100% sure what, but something.

There is just something about the head and upper torso of the Shad that just does it for me. Reminds me of something, likely anime (and therefore hated by Clan Neckbeard ) and just suits it. And for my problem with the Cent, it's the blocking, profile and angles of the mech that I have a serious problem with, squat and bloated when I believe it should be more slender and human in proportions. Again, that's just me.

[Bishop Steiner]

SuckyJack, on 22 April 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:

There is just something about the head and upper torso of the Shad that just does it for me. Reminds me of something, likely anime (and therefore hated by Clan Neckbeard ) and just suits it. And for my problem with the Cent, it's the blocking, profile and angles of the mech that I have a serious problem with, squat and bloated when I believe it should be more slender and human in proportions. Again, that's just me.

it's the Shd's head that kills me. 1980s portable tv for a head, lol.

[SweetJackal]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 08:30 PM, said:

it's the Shd's head that kills me. 1980s portable tv for a head, lol.

Better than the Canon Highlander head

[Captain Stiffy]

SuckyJack, on 22 April 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:

There is just something about the head and upper torso of the Shad that just does it for me. Reminds me of something, likely anime

Shadow Hawk was actually unseen.

Phoenix Hawk = Veritech Fighter (super VF 1 S from Robotech/Macross)
Shadow Hawk = Dougram combat armor: http://en.wikipedia....the_Sun_Dougram

From that show;


See also: http://brianscache.com/unseen/

I think that in the 2009 settlement unseen Dougram models became re-seen and the harmony gold (damn them) models from robotech like the warhammer and phoenix hawk did not.

I will forever and ever boycott Harmony Gold.

Whenever I think of Battletech the first two mechs that come to mind for me are the Marauder and Phoenix Hawk and they will never ever be in Battletech again ever, ever. Complete reality fale.

Edited by Captain Stiffy, 22 April 2014 - 08:42 PM.

[ApolloKaras]

So people go berserk over the larger ears for the A1... but yet we want to make the guns bigger on the mechs which would be easier to hit.


Okay I'm completely confused.

[SweetJackal]

Saxie, on 22 April 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

So people go berserk over the larger ears for the A1... but yet we want to make the guns bigger on the mechs which would be easier to hit.


Okay I'm completely confused.

Style, in both cases. With the K2 it is about the weapons being turned incredibly small compared to the mounting for the weapons and the original scaling for them. With the A1 (and any missile Cat) it has to do with the stretched proportions, profile changes and the VCRs you get when you start making use of more than 1 missile hardpoint per ear.

[Bishop Steiner]

Saxie, on 22 April 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

So people go berserk over the larger ears for the A1... but yet we want to make the guns bigger on the mechs which would be easier to hit.


Okay I'm completely confused.

ummm.....People shoot the ears on Missile cats. No one shoots for the guns on K2.

[Captain Stiffy]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 08:58 PM, said:

ummm.....People shoot the ears on Missile cats. No one shoots for the guns on K2.

LOL I already mentioned that the QQ is going to be enormous.

[ApolloKaras]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 08:58 PM, said:

ummm.....People shoot the ears on Missile cats. No one shoots for the guns on K2.

Well I'm not arguing either point. However if thats the case you're going to put a huge cannon on a light? People would be outraged lol