63 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

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?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 19 November 2014 - 05:47 PM.

[FupDup]

Something I've noticed on MLX weapon mounts is that there seems to be "unused" white space in many places.


For example, lasers have their normal nub, and are attached to a box that is thicker than the nub...the box should have the same thickness as the nub (instead of being larger). This also applies to MGs, but those aren't exactly a good choice on this mech anyways...

Also, missile tubes seem to be arranged so that they have "unused" space...they should be made more compact while preserving the same size for each individual tube.

Edited by FupDup, 19 November 2014 - 05:07 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 19 November 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

Something I've noticed on MLX weapon mounts is that there seems to be "unused" white space in many places.


For example, lasers have their normal nub, and are attached to a box that is thicker than the nub...the box should have the same thickness as the nub (instead of being larger). This also applies to MGs, but those aren't exactly a good choice on this mech anyways...

Also, missile tubes seem to be arranged so that they have "unused" space...they should be made more compact while preserving the same size for each individual tube.

Yeah, this seems to be the norm, a time saving technique. Which in this instance in particular, does have major game play implications. Is the MLX a DoA design? Depends on one's perspective. I do find it works well in indirect roles, spotting, etc. But considering the stock loads and such, it is entirely too limited in what it realistically can be expected to accomplish, not due to tonnage (which is what it is) or pod space (which tbh, 1 ton, give or take, would not matter....as long as all the firepower is in the arms).

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.

[Deathlike]

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.

That should be used as a last resort IMO. I can't quite find a use for it's RT however, so that's the only place to find something to add omnipods to (well, probably an additional MG arm to complement existing stuff).

[kuangmk11]

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.

[SweetJackal]

Bishop, how is the size of the AC/2 and PPC on the MLX compared to those weapons on larger mechs? Originally the complaint was that on mechs like the Firestarter, Locust and Blackjack certain weapons were horribly undersized.

If the MLX needs smaller arms then having the first weapon mounted being placed on the Hand Actuator location (if it would fit) when the Hand Actuator is removed might help with that problem. Making more efficient use of it's weapon mounting boxes would be another step.

Edited by SuckyJack, 19 November 2014 - 05:53 PM.

[Deathlike]

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.

There is point where the "lego construction" of your weapon loadouts went far and beyond logic... but then we had the Catapult-A1.

[KraftySOT]

Yeah I notice though I dont have an MLX, that the arms are bloody enormous. The game play implications aside, its not terribly good looking, but add in the gameplay implications its kind of a head scratcher.

[RazorbeastFXK3]

It's the same issue with the Cicada (unless it has been fixed since I last piloted it) where the ballistic ports didn't change appearance even if you put a UAC or LB10X or AC20 on them. They'd all look like machine guns.

[Bishop Steiner]

SuckyJack, on 19 November 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

Bishop, how is the size of the AC/2 and PPC on the MLX compared to those weapons on larger mechs? Originally the complaint was that on mechs like the Firestarter, Locust and Blackjack certain weapons were horribly undersized.

If the MLX needs smaller arms then having the first weapon mounted being placed on the Hand Actuator location (if it would fit) when the Hand Actuator is removed might help with that problem. Making more efficient use of it's weapon mounting boxes would be another step.

The weapons are mostly consistent on omnis, but the Locust, again, tiny. So yeah, constancy is a two edged sword though not stacking them over/under would go a long way to helping

KraftySOT, on 19 November 2014 - 05:52 PM, said:

Yeah I notice though I dont have an MLX, that the arms are bloody enormous. The game play implications aside, its not terribly good looking, but add in the gameplay implications its kind of a head scratcher.

I love how it looks...without guns, lol.

Or even with the ac or PPC....it's moderately compact. But part of the issue is that a .5 ton small laser occupies the exact same space as a 7 ton Large Pulse Laser.

[101011]

Deathlike, on 19 November 2014 - 05:37 PM, said:

That should be used as a last resort IMO. I can't quite find a use for it's RT however, so that's the only place to find something to add omnipods to (well, probably an additional MG arm to complement existing stuff).

Yes, yes, let's remove all of the non-canon hardpoints on IS 'Mechs. Oh, wait, you don't think that's a good idea?
Some 'Mechs just need more hardpoints to work. This whole "no hardpoint inflation for you filthy Clanners" mentality really bites when it comes to 'Mechs like the Adder, Ice Ferret, or Mist Lynx.

[Deathlike]

101011, on 19 November 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

Yes, yes, let's remove all of the non-canon hardpoints on IS 'Mechs. Oh, wait, you don't think that's a good idea?
Some 'Mechs just need more hardpoints to work. This whole "no hardpoint inflation for you filthy Clanners" mentality really bites when it comes to 'Mechs like the Adder, Ice Ferret, or Mist Lynx.

I'm not sure anyone's really ready to see how large a 4MG arm would look under the current system. Hardpoint inflation is fine, but it can get more ridiculous than it should be in the first place. Again, we can refer to the Catapult-A1's poor redesign for reference.

[Lucian Nostra]

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

[Summon3r]

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?

agree with this 100% this and every model in the game should be redone ASAP to be symetrical as it is now it's a detail that fly's in the face of a quality game.... do i even have to mention the new centurion right arm ballistics.

Edited by Summon3r, 19 November 2014 - 06:12 PM.

[SweetJackal]

101011, on 19 November 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

Yes, yes, let's remove all of the non-canon hardpoints on IS 'Mechs. Oh, wait, you don't think that's a good idea?
Some 'Mechs just need more hardpoints to work. This whole "no hardpoint inflation for you filthy Clanners" mentality really bites when it comes to 'Mechs like the Adder, Ice Ferret, or Mist Lynx.

To be fair, Hardpoint Inflation only adds more hardpoints to locations that have existing weapons. I cannot think of a single IS variant that had hardpoints added to a location that did not have weapons of that hardpoint type mounted to that location on the Stock Build for that variant.

Hardpoint inflation also has to go the extra mile for Clan Mechs as you need to measure it by location. Inflation needs to be spread over every location equally, otherwise you setup a pod setup that is without a doubt "the best" which removes the entire point of the Omni-mech system (being to swap around hardpoints to create more varied mechs and not be locked into a fixed hardpoint system.)

Since the other side torso pods don't have weapons then adding in side torso pods that have weapons would make those pods the best on the mech in terms of hardpoints and potential builds, invalidating the other pods for that side torso.

Edited by SuckyJack, 19 November 2014 - 06:18 PM.

[Sug]

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

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?!?!?!

Not being a 3D modeler I wonder is it really that hard to scale things in a consistent manner?

I thought that originally they just made every mech the same size and then scaled them down a percentage to make lighter mechs smaller (hello tiny PPCs on lights) but by now the weapons just all be a standard size.

[Elizander]

I still hate the change to the centurion canon arm by the way.

Also I don't think clan weapons should be the same as IS weapons in terms of scale some comparing the Lynx to a Locust or Spider might be the wrong thing to do.

Edited by Elizander, 19 November 2014 - 06:32 PM.

[Lucian Nostra]

Elizander, on 19 November 2014 - 06:31 PM, said:

I still hate the change to the centurion canon arm by the way.

Also I don't think clan weapons should be the same as IS weapons in terms of scale some comparing the Lynx to a Locust or Spider might be the wrong thing to do.

your right they should be smaller as in most circumstances the clan weapon is lighter and takes up less critical space.. but that's not what we're seeing..

[Funky Bacon]

Personally I like that they are making weapons bigger on lights now. Makes the mech's actually look small.

I'd say the spider and Firestarter for example don't have big enough guns.

Also, need we mention the Hollander? That mech that was built around a Gauss Rifle when MWO's light mechs can basically fit one in their pockets like a Noisy Cricket.

[Deathlike]

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

Taking a look at that, the arms on the Mist Lynx look rather symmetrical, but the laser placement doesn't have rhyme or reason; You'd think they should be the same (it's not like the Kitfox with asymmetrical arms).

If the lasers themselves were placed side to side instead of above and below, it would improve the synergy between the arms firing locations AND reduce the arm hitbox when viewed from the side. Just having the arm hitbox "expand" in the current design is rather disappointing.