17 replies to this topic

[Kalimaster]

With the last patch, the Jagermech got an upgrade to it's appearance, which in all practicality backfired in my opinion. The main feature that make the Jagermech likable was the presence of the big guns, and to see these weapons protrude out before you as you strode out across the battlefield to face your opponents.

I would like to see the size of the ballistic weapons restored to their original size on the Jagermech chassis, and perhaps even a slight size increase or lengthening of the barrels for the AC 2.

While the chassis of the S variant looks better, the size of the ballistic options leave something to be desired.

The Jagermech is the "Dirty Harry" of Mechwarrior. When he pointed a 44. Mag at someone they knew they were looking down the barrel of a large gun. Now the Jagermech has pea-shooters. It needs to have the larger impression of the guns which is what made it so awesome!

[Cyborne Elemental]

Russ already mentioned that he's getting the Art team to look at making some adjustments.

So hopefully we'll see it fixed back to the way it was for the Ballistic slots down the road.

[Rogue Jedi]

sorry, with those 2 options I cannot chose ether, I do not like the smaller size but nether do I think it is a critical problem that needs fixing immediately.

I would have been happy to place a vote for please return the JM6 big gun barrels

[destroika]

Compensating for something?

Sorry, couldn't resist!

[WonderSparks]

I do not think it is a "badly needed fix" but admittedly the tiny guns just look shameful.
...At least the few I have seen up-close do. I only own one Jagermech that uses AC's instead of MGs (the only other Jagermech I own is a DD with six of them) and I rarely use or tinker with it, and nobody stands still long enough for me to get a good look so I have little idea just how they all look.

[loopala]

Kalimaster, on 23 March 2015 - 07:27 AM, said:

The Jagermech is the "Dirty Harry" of Mechwarrior. When he pointed a 44. Mag at someone they knew they were looking down the barrel of a large gun. Now the Jagermech has pea-shooters. It needs to have the larger impression of the guns which is what made it so awesome!

Nope Yen Lo Wang is the Dirty Harry of MWO



And yes the guns need to be bigger.

Edited by loopala, 24 March 2015 - 08:37 AM.

[Ulfgar Snorrison]

Somewhere at PGI is an artist who thinks they've done something really cool. But to me my once lovely Jags just look dumb. [edit] Remember the first mech you fell in love with when you started MWO. How long you had to grind before you could scrap together the cbills to finally buy it. Yeah, it was a Jag for me. Oh well.

Edited by Ulfgar Snorrison, 24 March 2015 - 06:25 AM.

[Stealth Fox]

destroika, on 23 March 2015 - 04:42 PM, said:

Compensating for something?

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Hell yes I am when I bring out the JagerBomb.
(******* love my f*cking mecha)
But no seriously.. it's suppose to be an Anti Air mech..it needs cannon sizes worthy of Anti Air duty.

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

As stated, this specific 'Mech, as one of it's prime roles, was to provide anti-air capabilities. And should indicate this requirement in it's ability to engage distant airborne targets accurately.

- Our current max sensor range of 1000 to 1250mtrs for ground based units will not work for air units. Their detection should be 3 to 4 times this range, allowing the 'Mech Pilot time to bring weapons to bare or move to a location to engage.
- The weapons normally used for this type of engagement was AC5's or AC2's and should be modeled to indicate this long range precision capability. You didn't think that large 'T' shaped sensor on the 'Mech's head was just for looks, did you?
- This may also require PGI to build a different method to engage air units, there speed and height change normal ballistics calculations and lead drastically. Perhaps a new reticle for air based targets?

Here's some eye candy of this 'Mech in action, doing it's job as Air sentry. (thanks to Sp0oKy777)

9erRed

Edited by 9erRed, 25 March 2015 - 10:29 AM.

[Serpentbane]

9erRed, on 25 March 2015 - 10:24 AM, said:

Greetings all,

As stated, this specific 'Mech, as one of it's prime roles, was to provide anti-air capabilities. And should indicate this requirement in it's ability to engage distant airborne targets accurately.

- Our current max sensor range of 1000 to 1250mtrs for ground based units will not work for air units. Their detection should be 3 to 4 times this range, allowing the 'Mech Pilot time to bring weapons to bare or move to a location to engage.
- The weapons normally used for this type of engagement was AC5's or AC2's and should be modeled to indicate this long range precision capability. You didn't think that large 'T' shaped sensor on the 'Mech's head was just for looks, did you?
- This may also require PGI to build a different method to engage air units, there speed and height change normal ballistics calculations and lead drastically. Perhaps a new reticle for air based targets?

Here's some eye candy of this 'Mech in action, doing it's job as Air sentry. (thanks to Sp0oKy777)

9erRed

This only shows PGI having way to small ambissions with this game. They were thinking Mechwarrior of duty, when they should have been thinking Battlemech Field, or even ARMA (Armored Mech Assaut).

[Strum Wealh]

9erRed, on 25 March 2015 - 10:24 AM, said:

Greetings all,

As stated, this specific 'Mech, as one of it's prime roles, was to provide anti-air capabilities. And should indicate this requirement in it's ability to engage distant airborne targets accurately.

- Our current max sensor range of 1000 to 1250mtrs for ground based units will not work for air units. Their detection should be 3 to 4 times this range, allowing the 'Mech Pilot time to bring weapons to bare or move to a location to engage.
- The weapons normally used for this type of engagement was AC5's or AC2's and should be modeled to indicate this long range precision capability. You didn't think that large 'T' shaped sensor on the 'Mech's head was just for looks, did you?
- This may also require PGI to build a different method to engage air units, there speed and height change normal ballistics calculations and lead drastically. Perhaps a new reticle for air based targets?

Here's some eye candy of this 'Mech in action, doing it's job as Air sentry. (thanks to Sp0oKy777)

9erRed

Part of the counterpoint to that is that the canonical bore sizes of the average AC/5 (the JagerMech's larger guns) were between 50mm (1.97 inches) and 80mm (3.15 inches), and the canonical bore sizes of the average AC/2 (the JagerMech's smaller guns) were between 30mm (1.18 inches) and 40mm (1.57 inches).
By contrast, the MWO JagerMech is on the order of ~15 meters (49.21 feet, or 590.55 inches) tall.

This is an 80mm anti-aircraft gun (representing the upper range of size of JagerMech's AC/5s):


This is a slightly-larger 88mm anti-aircraft gun:


Likewise, this is a 40mm anti-aircraft gun (representing the upper range of size of JagerMech's AC/2s):


This is a slightly-smaller 37mm anti-aircraft gun:


In other words, the JagerMech's guns aren't & shouldn't be these massive battleship guns that some people evidently think they should be represented as.

[Idealsuspect]

My lbx-20 jagg or AC40 jagg have still big guns ^^

You want big guns then carry big guns maybe.
But its true that MWO AC5 jagg dont look like battlemech boardgame jagg.

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

Yes, I'll give you the benefit to those (current and past tech) smaller bores having smaller profiles.

- But, these BattleTech weapons have additional cooling and armour designed into there structure.
- Yes, the actual bore size could be small, but the overall size still large.
(designed so that a simple passing swipe of a laser hit would not render it 'destroyed')
~ those images are all indicating 'air cooled' barrels, these 'Mech weapons are designed for 'all environments' including a vacuum. Burning out a barrel or heat flex/bending or droop should not be something we would ever see in a 'Mech sized weapon.

It's still difficult to explain where all the weight exists in the listed Tech spec's for these AC2 and 5 weapons.
Having 6 and 8Tons of weapon needs to be balanced, quite a bit could be the barrel extensions.

9erRed

Edited by 9erRed, 26 March 2015 - 10:57 AM.

[Ulfgar Snorrison]

Does size matter? First of all loved the cannon photos, Strum Wealh. Since some Battletech guy somewhere said MWO isn't canon, I started my quest for comparing real world cannon bore size vs MWO's AC/whatever with weigh per round of ammo. According to Jane's a complete round of real world WW2 Bofors 40MM is just under 5 pounds. Since math makes me head hurt I'm gonna round that upper to 5 pounds to give us 400 rounds per ton of ammo. Weight of AC/2 round at 75 per ton equals 26.66 pounds. In other words....
NONE OF THIS MATTERS! MY JAGS STILL LOOK DUMB!
Love to everyone, and here have some Tyenol.

[Idealsuspect]

Ulfgar Snorrison, on 27 March 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

According to Jane's a complete round of real world WW2 Bofors 40MM is just under 5 pounds. Since math makes me head hurt I'm gonna round that upper to 5 pounds to give us 400 rounds per ton of ammo. Weight of AC/2 round at 75 per ton equals 26.66 pounds. In other words....

True but you know a M1 abram is like 65 tonns and its smaller than a jenner without leggs and arms ( 8 meter long )... also weight in battletech ....
For real an atlas should be like 250-300 tonns.

Edited by Idealsuspect, 27 March 2015 - 01:24 PM.

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

As was pointed out be Ulfgar, weight for the 2's and 5 AC rounds would be way off.
- But weight alone, doesn't dictate size, density would be closer.

This could indicate that (within the BattleTech verse) even if the bore size and projectiles are small, they may be a very dense material to counter BattleTech armour.
- Now we get into where real world issues, ballistics dynamics, start to take very different paths.
- Projectile weight and size, barrel length, muzzle velocity, just don't appear to match any known real perimeters.
(I know, I know, referencing real world and BattleTech in the same paragraph, sorry.)

When it comes to 'Mechs and what the PGI Artists and animators decide, 'looks good', or 'works across the 'Mech range of chassis', may not match any BattleTech spec's for these same weapons. Similarly, what we currently see as this 'Mech's visual loadout may not actually be the same where 'Air Defence and Engagement' systems are concerned.
- Same weapon but different designs for different target types.
(like the difference between a 30mm Mk108 2ft barrel and the supersized 30mm GAU-8 cannon, 7.5ft.)

We currently don't have the ability to engage air targets, (it will eventually be made usable, reference from the Dev.'s) as new MWO assists are designed and placed into the game. With these Air units, we'll need a method to counter there presence. This may be where we will see longer, larger barrels supplied to this specific 'Mech. (but as I mentioned earlier, we'll also need a new method of aiming and targeting air units.)

PGI has already stated they have coding problems with multi ammo types for similar weapons, this could also carry over to same weapons having different designs. (even though we know from Lore that numerous manufactures of the same listed weapon changed quite a few elements, from bore, to number of rounds fired to achieve the same effect.)
- PGI may have simplified the artistic render of same weapons systems, for standardised code, hit detection, and animation placement. But for some chassis it may have ruined there looks from what we were expecting. (seen on the Jager and the Vulture)

There may be some other gameplay issues we haven't fully considered, placing long barrels in front of the Pilots face and having rapid fire visual effects blasting away, could be a 'blinding effect'. (possibly fixable with 'flash eliminators' installed) But, still requiring some design issues for PGI. The complaints about "I can't see anything when I'm shooting" would be epic, but unjustified. (for anyone that has seen a real, large modern cannon fire, it's still not even close.) Muzzle flash 'IS' blinding, hence the word 'flash'.
- Now there's a lot of technical reasons why there's needs to be a flash in the first place. Expanding gas's, muzzle velocity, barrel length, projectile length and weight and it goes on and on. So, no, you can't get rid of it.

Ok, I've bounced around topics enough. Point still is, the looks of the Jager just doesn't seem right without those long barrels/muzzles.

Note here for Idealsuspect,
The weight of modern tanks is mostly all in armour protection and types of materials used. It theory, if we had lightweight 'BattleTech armour' these same vehicles would be much lighter but more mass. The Leopard or Abrams would both be lighter but probably twice as large. (theoretically)

Aim True and Run Cool,
9erRed

Edited by 9erRed, 29 March 2015 - 04:41 PM.

[r4p70r]

Pls patch it back, i didnt play MWO since this patch and i will never touch it again with that gimpish looks.

Or just patch all the other chassis with the same gunsizes to be fair but im sure then nobody will pay money for your shity looking Mechs, maybe its the reason why you dont touch newer chassis in weapon sizes.

I feel really sry for spending money on MWO, its like a slap in the face, just bought the Hero-Jager and all other variants because i really liked the look of the Jaegermech and then you ruined this beautyful Mech, what shame.

[Zephonarch II]

I agree, only because I want to see the cannons through my cockpit glass window. Otherwise I don't feel like a man in that Dakka-machine.