353 replies to this topic

[SweetJackal]

Matt Newman, on 23 April 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

Founders, Phoenix and Invasion 'Mechs all have unique patterns on Unique Geometry. They are only ever available in pre-order packs. the unique geometry and the effort to support that with each new pattern increases the workload. In the past players could not even customize the colors. So i wouldn't count on putting patterns on these very specific type of 'Mechs.

as for the Color selection we manipulate the Red Green and Blue channels of the texture to alter the colors. the alpha channel dictates what areas are not altered. That is how some mechs have a set amount of customization some patterns only have 2 colors but 3 is our maximum.

I know this is just a far flung hope, but could 'Unique Geometry' be made and sold to mech on a by chassis basis? Like an Armor Spike Atlas. I wouldn't expect them to be able to use Camos but changing colors on them would be nice?

By this I mean new models for mechs, not the current camo pattern system we have.

[Manei Domini Krigg]

This looking great.
Im crying when so wonderful looking mech was killed with his terrible config:
35t
only 3 energy (2 cerppc or 2/3 cerll)
97,2 (+10% = 106,9) km/h (NO engine change for clans as you remember)

[IraqiWalker]

Krigg, on 23 April 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

This looking great.
Im crying when so wonderful looking mech was killed with his terrible config:
35t
only 3 energy (2 cerppc or 2/3 cerll)
97,2 (+10% = 106,9) km/h (NO engine change for clans as you remember)

You do know you can put any weapons you want in it, right? 3 energy is the prime config, the others will probably have ballistic and missile hardpoints on it, and you can just put the arms with missiles or ballistics depending on what you want.

[BLOOD WOLF]

That model looks a little better than the timberwolf

[NextGame]

Quote

It also has a fixed mount Flamer which cannot be removed from the ‘Mech

Why would you even do this?

[Koniving]

SpartanFiredog317, on 23 April 2014 - 08:49 PM, said:

PGI.... I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE PRIME VERSION... TELL ME what other versions you have....

I.E. If it comes with the 2x CLRM20 version I will buy, else way too slow to be a light!!

I really wish I could figure out where the heck my little hardpoint chart is. Someone gave it to me and it was like "O_O GOLD MINE" and I don't have it anymore.

But among the configurations listed on that excel document as 'potentials' based on the configurations... Some included single to triple ballistic arm hardpoints, missile hardpoints, up to triple energy hardpoints, and mixtures.

A mixture for example could be a ballistic and missile on an arm.

One thing I absolutely recall from from that chart of configurations is that with the exception of the Timber Wolf, every single Clan mech in the Clan Invasion package had the potential ability to mount up to 6 ballistics, though never more than 3 in one location.

BTW if you see this and know what I'm talking about, send me the Excel file / google doc of the potential clan hardpoints again! Thanks Gasoline for finding the charts.

Chart 1.
Chart 2.

Note as specifically stated: Speculation of hardpoints only.

Edited by Koniving, 24 April 2014 - 08:50 AM.

[Koniving]

NextGame, on 23 April 2014 - 10:14 PM, said:

Why would you even do this?

Because without PGI meddling... An AC/2, an MG, and a Flamer, all do the same damage in a 10 second period. Also unlike in MWO, 80% of combat for light mechs is actually against infantry, vehicles, etc., while being escorted by vehicles and battlearmor.

The flamer also produced identical heat to a laser in a 10 second period (that being 3 heat; and to note a ML there only did 5 damage in ten seconds). Pretty negligible compared to the 12 heat and 15 damage that MWO's ML does here in 10 seconds (9, actually, counting full beam times.)

As for why.... PGI suddenly chose to stick with rules (after allowing all kinds of engine rating ranges for Battlemechs instead of only the permitted engines for Inner Sphere mechs, changeable weapons without 'fees' and the lengths of time required to make the changes, lack of R&R, allowing us to change the entire skeleton of a mech for only 750,000 , etc, etc, etc.). o.O;

Edited by Koniving, 23 April 2014 - 10:46 PM.

[SweetJackal]

Koniving, on 23 April 2014 - 10:28 PM, said:

I really wish I could figure out where the heck my little hardpoint chart is. Someone gave it to me and it was like "O_O GOLD MINE" and I don't have it anymore.

But among the configurations listed on that excel document as 'potentials' based on the configurations... Some included single to triple ballistic arm hardpoints, missile hardpoints, up to triple energy hardpoints, and mixtures.

A mixture for example could be a ballistic and missile on an arm.

One thing I absolutely recall from from that chart of configurations is that with the exception of the Timber Wolf, every single Clan mech in the Clan Invasion package had the potential ability to mount up to 6 ballistics, though never more than 3 in one location.

BTW if you see this and know what I'm talking about, send me the Excel file / google doc of the potential clan hardpoints again!

I think there was a graph posted in the Ultimate Mech discussion somewhere. Good Luck

[Koniving]

SuckyJack, on 23 April 2014 - 10:43 PM, said:

I think there was a graph posted in the Ultimate Mech discussion somewhere. Good Luck

Oh boy. I'll wait for the person who originally gave it to me to see that.

[Airmikee]

xWiredx, on 23 April 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

Fixed flamer is pretty much canon, is it not? http://www.sarna.net...dder_%28Puma%29

HEY! Don't go ruining perfectly stupid opinions by introducing the facts into the conversation!

[Zack Esseth]

Koniving, on 23 April 2014 - 08:35 PM, said:

Spoiler

Thinking about it, going by the size of the Raven the Adder is kinda tiny.

FLAWLESS VICTORY.

Sir, you slay me.

[Ryoken]

Koniving, on 23 April 2014 - 08:18 PM, said:

Remember the actual Adder cannot torso twist. That was added so that it could and still house the parts necessary to walk.

Want to have 0 twist? Then you can get the smaller pelvis as most of the stuff required to make the legs move were in the torso instead.
You'd also have 0 vertical tilt to the torso, too, with everything 100% dependent on your arms. It'd just be angling forward or backward with your legs.
(Interesting fact is that the Jenner and Locust can't torso twist in lore either. Or the Kitfox or the Nova. Actually not sure on Kit Fox but think it can't. Matter of fact the Locust and the Nova had their Legs connected to their shoulders and the 'Arms' extended just beyond the legs and attached just outside of the start of the thighs).

But honestly looking at it didn't give me what you had.

The difference here is without the torso twist ability, the TRO version has the torso overlapping the hip axles (upper leg actuators).

Maybe I was a tad unclear in my earlier post. I was referring to the front panel of the belly section only, it is clear that below the front panel some room is needed because they "lowered the legs to grant torso movement".

In the TRO Artwork the front panel of the lunchbox is clearly less than half the size of the cockpit nose.
In contrast to this in the MWO Invasion Adder the lunchbox front panel is clearly over half the size of the cockpit nose.

It is way to big, therefore I showed how the right ratio of lunchbox front panel and cockpit nose easyly can be kept with unimpeded twist and vertical tilt as it fits very well to the front of the standard model without having that bulky oversized boxed look:

The lunchboxes front panel is nearly twice the vertical size it should be as seen in the TRO pic.

[IraqiWalker]

NextGame, on 23 April 2014 - 10:14 PM, said:

Why would you even do this?

That's the actual configuration of the Adder, it always had the flamer.

Here, read this:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Adder

[Sephlock]

Hopefully the Hero version will let us stick a tag up there .

[Entail]

this was uplifting as the design of the timberworlf looked like a bunch of reused parts from existing mechs in the wrong proportions.
this puma actually looks good,faith in art team restored

Edited by Entail, 24 April 2014 - 12:51 AM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Entail, on 24 April 2014 - 12:50 AM, said:

this was uplifting as the design of the timberworlf looked like a bunch of reused parts from existing mechs in the wrong proportions.
this puma actually looks good,faith in art team restored

not untill the TW has it's problems fixed.

adder = success, because only one gripe is going on and that's a small hieght issue with one part.

TW = not successfull, because there's about 5 screw ups on the proportions of the model compared to the concept art.

until that's rectified down to at least 2 probs then model team is still losing its way {like catapult/hunchi weapons updates and 5 finger banshee, along with the age old mech scaling fiascos}

[IraqiWalker]

GalaxyBluestar, on 24 April 2014 - 01:53 AM, said:

not untill the TW has it's problems fixed.

adder = success, because only one gripe is going on and that's a small hieght issue with one part.

TW = not successfull, because there's about 5 screw ups on the proportions of the model compared to the concept art.

until that's rectified down to at least 2 probs then model team is still losing its way {like catapult/hunchi weapons updates and 5 finger banshee, along with the age old mech scaling fiascos}

Pretty sure all the mechs are at proper height, yeah some mediums can be taller than heavies, however, it's the mass not height that determines the weight class.

[QuaxDerBruchpilot]

Well ... nice, however the legs look interestingly with one talon forward and two back. Looks like it's running in reverse all the time. As for the legs .. is there a fancy at PGI for super-lenght legs? I mean this is a 'Mech, not a Supermodel ... they are not as unproportional as the Timberwolfs, but still far to long compared with the rest, at least IMHO.

Edit: after looking up the Adder in the WIki, it seems it's supposed to look this way. Strange anyway.

Edited by Quax1102, 24 April 2014 - 02:54 AM.

[dragnier1]

I think allowing the art team allowance to interpret the design art their way would be good though.

Reading some of them posts "omg fixed flamer ruined it!" sure make me laugh, so hilarious and nonsensical at the same time

[Cavendish]

1) Looks really good, Im impressed.

2) Could we please have seperate cammo patterns for IS and Clans? I dont wanna look like the opposition when I take to the field!

3) Nitpicking, but when you say it has two ERPPCs... you really mean cERPPCs, right? You are not trying to blanket over some "oh this balancing is hard, lets just have the same weapons all over because we could not find a solution in time for our deadline..." I hope?