63 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Lucian Nostra, on 19 November 2014 - 06:11 PM, said:

There's a perfect side by side, 2 Medium Lasers in each arm in the exact same layout.. and wow the Spiders are much more compact..

Just excuse the white line, good ol copy paste

That is a perfect illustration of the effect of removing the outer "weapon box" from the laser nubs on the MLX (the Spider lacks such boxes, just has the nubs mounted straight on the arms).

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

Has any thought been given to PGI allocating different manufactures for similar weapons systems?

I seem to remember that there were many companies that produced the same weapon and they did not look or even operate the same.
- Some had different size ammo, different designs, and fired differently, but all produced the same desired effect.

Now you tell me that every similar weapon within the game should look and be designed exactly the same, that's quite a break from what the Lore and Tech manuals tell us.
- we get the same effect with our own timeline based weapons, how many designs for a 7.62mm semi auto rifle exist, how many countries make that weapon, are they all identical? (far from it)

Given within this time line there are different Factions and they all produce similar weapons systems, I would assume they do not all look identical. They can be interchanged with each other, but there looks may indeed be different.

Note here: that image of the 2 Mech's and comparing Med lasers. You do release that it's an IS and a Clan Mech, two vastly different weapons design histories at the time of the Invasion.

Just saying,
9erRed

Edited by 9erRed, 19 November 2014 - 07:34 PM.

[W A R L O R D]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 November 2014 - 05:26 PM, said:

And yeah, for game play balance, this might be the first time I have been willing to say, break canon and place some hardpoints in less easily lost locations.

Why would you be willing to have an inconsistency in canon for a consistency in "game play balance"? All that would happen is the dogmatics would start screaming at PGI for breaking consistency in canon for consistency in "game play balance". People trash PGI all the time about veering from canon....sounds like that would be a "damned if you do and damned if you dont" situation to me....

[Sug]

9erRed, on 19 November 2014 - 07:28 PM, said:

Now you tell me that every similar weapon within the game should look and be designed exactly the same, that's quite a break from what the Lore and Tech manuals tell us.

Just saying,
9erRed

All the weapons in the game have the same stats as other identical weapons. Just like in TT. There is no variance except how they look and how they look effects the chassis. The information in the Lore and Tech Manuals about any differences in weapons is just fluff.

As much as I enjoy the fluff, I think if they're not going to give us manufacturers quirks to individual weapons then they should look the same on different mechs to keep things equal.

If looks didn't effect hitboxes it probably wouldn't matter.

Edited by Sug, 19 November 2014 - 07:40 PM.

[Hillslam]

While I get the reasons given by PGI about shared art assets, which makes sense, the bit where they say "you can tell what an enemy has loaded by looking at it" is pure bollocks.

I never once ever, ever, figured out what I was fighting against and where to aim by doing a visual pass on the mech in my windscreen. "Oh hmm, that mech is running an AC2 not an AC10, and 2 SRM6s vs streaks. Well then, I'll deploy the Benini Defense Maneuver 12 in this situation"...

Right. Nope. Never. Not once. Paper doll. Enemy weapon list. If that. mostly I just blow bits off em based on the chassis.

The visuals should be "un-standardized" to make for better looking mechs. But I understand this is a monumental undertaking for the art dept. Still, please just call it like it is, and don't piss on my boot and tell me its raining.

Edited by Hillslam, 19 November 2014 - 08:07 PM.

[Sug]

Hillslam, on 19 November 2014 - 08:07 PM, said:

the bit where they say "you can tell what an enemy has loaded by looking at it" is pure bollocks.

I know all I see is a robot in a red square. After 3 years of playing I don't think I could even tell you what anyone's paint job was...

Edited by Sug, 19 November 2014 - 08:45 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

So what are you asking for, Goldilocks? Is there a perfect sweet spot between the ridiculously shrunk Firestarter weapons and the chunky Mist Lynx weapons? They're both hilariously tiny compared to weapons mounted on heavy and assault mechs.

Put a gauss rifle on any light mech in MWO and compare it to this.

IMO they finally got it right with the Mist Lynx. And yes, it's part of the reason the Mist Lynx sucks. But there are many other reasons, and I think those reasons are more important. Partially because I don't want them to go back to the ridiculous Firestarter scale.

They finally started doing things in scale and people are complaining because it makes the Mist Lynx bad. I have the Mist Lynx. I've been piloting it almost exclusively since it was released. Working on elite skills right now. I know it's bad. I still want them to keep weapons in scale. I don't want my PPC+ECM jump sniper to look like it's armed with a tiny blue laser, which is in fact supposed to represent a huge 6 ton weapon.

I've got 99 problems, but over-sized PPC's and AC2's ain't one of them.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 19 November 2014 - 11:44 PM.

[CocoaJin]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 November 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

Yes, I know, I have brought this up before. Even got a polite answer, some half a year ago about it. And yes, I am considered, accurately or not, to be a White Knight, by the detractors of PGI in most things.

And yes, one could say there are higher functionality issues to consider, CW, etc. And that is true, except now, we have an example of where the inability of the Modelers to maintain any consistent scale has severely impacted the overall usability of a mech.

The Myst Lynx. Works fine as a spotter, or in a few other niche roles. But it is, undeniable, that the weapons attached to the arms are so dramatically out of scale, and so disproportionately huge, as to actually cripple the mech, outside of those niche, non direct confrontation roles.



Compare the AC2s on the FS9-H Firestarter, the LCT-PB Locust and MLX. On the 2 IS mechs, the weapon is scarcely larger than a Machine Gun (despite being 12 times the mass). On the Mist Lynx it is MASSIVELY larger (though it does look pretty stinking fierce, lol)

Now compare the PPCs. The Firestarter has a dinky one, the size of a medium laser, ludicrously small. The one on the Locust is noticeably more massive, and on the Mist Lynx? Again, it's like it's carrying a massive anti drop ship cannon, in comparison.

On all of them, the medium laser lens is close enough to not really be a big deal, but the bolt on housing for the Mist Lynx is again, HUGE.

And in the case of the Mist Lynx, since ALL it's weapons are arm mounted, this does indeed completely negate it's ability to compete with direct fire/short range builds.

Mind you, with CW and the like on the table, atm, I am NOT asking PGI to drop everything and rescale all the weapons this very moment.

But is it unreasonable to ask for them to take this into consideration for future releases, especially as this was brought to their attention MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE PAST?!?!?!

Anyhow, PGI, thank you for the game, and your time, but please, please look into this?

These discrepancies can easily be explained away with weapon variants. AC/2s can be of varying caliber...though they would balance different calipers with more or fewer rounds in the burst fire...in our case, just assume variants of IS single shot ACs can produce the same damage within a class by balancing their varying caliber with different types of munitions(heavier, lighter, more or less massive, AP, HE, APHE, discarding sabot, etc).

Same goes with energy weapons, different manufactures can create the same glass of weapon in all kinds of different ways and physical parameters.

[zagibu]

The "whitespace" around the laser lenses on the Mist Lynx is there, because the port has to be able to accomodate the larger PPC/AC barrels. Sadly, they don't do weapon-specific ports, which is why the Cent's right arm looks so horrible now.

[Ens]

man, am i afraid when the AWS finally gets a mechlab retrofit....

it´s weapons will probably look like directly from toys"r"us

[The Wakelord]

kuangmk11, on 19 November 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

We complained about not getting consistent sizes, now they are trying to make them consistent. The firestarter, locust and many others will need a weapon scale pass.

I would love weapons to be a reliable size visually, but I know there would be a big cry on the forums that now lights & mediums are being nerfed.

PPC on a spider? The PPC arm would be the size of the spider's entire torso. It would look effing awesome, but it means it would collect a lot of damage.

Quote

I never once ever, ever, figured out what I was fighting against and where to aim by doing a visual pass on the mech in my windscreen. "Oh hmm, that mech is running an AC2 not an AC10, and 2 SRM6s vs streaks. Well then, I'll deploy the Benini Defense Maneuver 12 in this situation"...

I do. Not necessarily for an AC5 v AC10, but for instance looking at a timber wolf you know instantly if it has missile ears, or if the Centurion has a gauss hand, AC hand or empty hand.

[Xenois Shalashaska]

Lol. Seriously weapons do not have to be the same size design universally across all chassis especially energy weapons like ppc and lasers. Ballistic weapons would have to have a diameter bore to the weapon because that is scale based on the ammo diameter. Unless they determine the Ac20 by Kinetic energy, then the dimensions of the diameter and length of the round is different therefore the gun is either small diameter and longer barrel or bigger diameter and shorter barrel.

[totgeboren]

The guns on the Mist Lynx look 100 times better than the guns on the IS mechs.
It's just annoying to see say a Locust with what obviously looks like a machine gun be armed with an AC. The PPC on the Firestarter looks silly. How can that be the same weapon system as what is mounted in the arms of a K2? It is even worse than the ACs on the new Cent arm, which we know are not supposed to look as small as they do.

I mean, if some lights (like the Mist Lynx) become almost unplayable because of the size of their guns, lo and behold, the hit-boxes do not need to match the visuals exactly. For example, Ravens obviously have larger leg hitboxes than what their visuals would imply.
Could they not just reduce the hitboxes if a somewhat consistent scale would render some mechs too fragile?

Edited by totgeboren, 20 November 2014 - 01:34 AM.

[QuantumButler]

Consistent scale takes more than a minimally viable effort.

[Bulvar Jorgensson]

I would also like to point out that the Mist Lynx arms were supposed to sit about cockpit height on the mech not swing down at the mechs waist like chimpanzee arms.

I am thinking however that might make the mech too much of a hull down light for PGI's liking.

If I could find some old mech pics I would post them.

Ghosting the Mist Lynx weapon boxes might solve the Arm destruction sort term, but if PGI are going for consistency across the board I vote for IS weapons having their weapon scaling increased (oh wait the entire team is working on CW, ohh is that another MC mech I see being injected for IS players, cannot be all the developers/programmers are working on CW)

Screwing over your playing/paying gamers seems to be MWO buzz word, and there was me thinking that got trashed like IPG.

CLAN quirks before CW would be a mighty big way of saying oops here you go guys, as looking at the last tourney totals IS mechs/houses are going to stop the clans on the periphery if the total damage scores are looked at.

[Revorn]

Every small Ligth with a 6-7 ton Weapon on an Arm, should get an Quirk, for hardly drifting into an circle-like Movement towardsthe Direction of the Arm, where this Weapon is fittet onto.


And, gimme back my Cent-Weapon-Arm.

Edited by Revorn, 20 November 2014 - 03:02 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Let me say that I do think weapon normalized size is a good idea, and I would like to see it more, I still feel there should be some exceptions.

The Catapult K2 with PPCs in the arm are probably a bit on the big side for most PPC barrel sizes. They probably scaled it more inline and now there have been posts about how the new barrels look bad (which they do).

I can see some small scale diffences coming into play, but as it is now, I agree that it appears to be all across the board.

Maybe look at it this way in the mean time (till PGI addresses it more), different weapon manufacturers have different weapon designs. some are bigger, some are smaller. It is a crappy excuse, but the best I can think of right now LOL. It's early in the morning here right now.

[Bishop Steiner]

Bulvar Jorgensson, on 20 November 2014 - 01:56 AM, said:

(oh wait the entire team is working on CW, ohh is that another MC mech I see being injected for IS players, cannot be all the developers/programmers are working on CW)

Um...you mean another MC Mech released on an already existing chassis, meaning...next to no work involved?

Tinfoil hats are on sale, aisle 3.

[Lily from animove]

IS has different manufactuerers, so they probably alter because of that. clanmechs so far seem to have the same size on all the mechs.

[CDLord HHGD]

Advanced tech you say? Clans superior you say? Betty sounds the same... The cockpits look comparative (was hoping for more Trek vs Wars in that regard). Bulkier visuals (miniaturization is the hallmark of advanced technology after all).

The game is great, the future is bright, thank you PGI. Please consider Bishop's plea though. I have never called a mech DOA and always figured something out. Last night in the MLX was tough though. I'm not giving up, but the little guy does need some love.