41 replies to this topic

[Hillslam]

I know there was another thread (indeed, threads) on this. And the Jager was certainly not the first to be thusly *****. But I think it just needs seen again, maybe seen by more who didn't before. Maybe posted to twitter, reddit, facebook..... you know, *visible* like our weapons no longer are.

So many mechs ruined by geometry passes. So much beautiful art and original modelling soiled, shat, sullied. So many tears.

Why, oh Jager, why did they do this to you???

ERLL+AC5

WWHHYYYYYY?
.

PPC+AC5

--------------------------------------------
Never Forget

(PS yes these are the EXACT SAME CANNONS as above)


MG+AC5
-------------------------

The Hunchback, the Catapult, the Maddog, the Cataphract, so many fallen



(Yes I know about the ambiguous promise that was made to look out "outliers". pffft. Catapult is what, one year and counting?) *goes and consoles myself with my wubby*

Edited by Hillslam, 25 March 2015 - 04:57 PM.

[Burktross]

[Hans Von Lohman]

I think alot of this is due to the fact that an AC-5 on a light mech should be the same size as an AC-5 on an assault mech.

Battletech art is not a great source of logic after all.

[Celthora]

Russ' Hollander:


"Gauss range decreased by 50%"

[El Bandito]

Dammit, Jim. Its a Jagermech, not a Blackjack!

[Hans Von Lohman]

And yet nobody complains that Large Lasers are using Medium Laser graphics?

[FupDup]

Hans Von Lohman, on 25 March 2015 - 05:45 PM, said:

And yet nobody complains that Large Lasers are using Medium Laser graphics?

Copy-paste lasers are kinda boring, especially seeing how even concept art uses different lens colors.

[Deathlike]

Hans Von Lohman, on 25 March 2015 - 05:45 PM, said:

And yet nobody complains that Large Lasers are using Medium Laser graphics?

Lasers are all the same size when you put them on a mech. Really. They didn't bother to differentiate them visually.

Large wub exactly the same as Small pewpew (not the laser firing, just the laser weapon display).

So, meh.

Edited by Deathlike, 25 March 2015 - 05:55 PM.

[Wiley Coyote]

Celthora, on 25 March 2015 - 05:35 PM, said:

Russ' Hollander:


"Gauss range decreased by 50%"

Other quirks:

Manliness decreased by 75%
Embarrassment increased by 100%
Pointing and laughing by opponents and own team increased by 200%

[Quxudica]

Hans Von Lohman, on 25 March 2015 - 05:33 PM, said:

I think alot of this is due to the fact that an AC-5 on a light mech should be the same size as an AC-5 on an assault mech.

Battletech art is not a great source of logic after all.

Weapons should have set unchanging physical dimensions, they should not magically get smaller or larger depending on what mech they are applied to. It's one aspect of the game that a really wish was more sim centered. The idea of all weapons taking up the magical amorphous "Critical" space unit annoys me. Some mechs should simply not be able to carry some guns, not because they don't have enough vaguely defined criticals, but because the weapon is simply too massive for the chassis.
The entire reason mechs like the Hunchback look the way they do is because they were purpose built to carry excessively large weapons.

Celthora, on 25 March 2015 - 05:35 PM, said:

Russ' Hollander:


"Gauss range decreased by 50%"

Do you worry your cannons aren't getting the barrel length they need? Are you looking for just a bit more muzzle velocity? Well worry no more, coming next patch new "Mech Enhancement" consumables will now be available. For the low price of 3000 mc your gauss cannon can be the envy of your entire team.

warning, if prefire charge lasts longer than four hours contact a weapons specialist immediately.

Edited by Quxudica, 25 March 2015 - 06:13 PM.

[Lagster]

You know, nothing is stopping anyone from building a housing around a weapon for aesthetic or armor purposes.

Quote

The Stone Rhino also sported an interesting feature; each arm contained a retractable, shock-absorbing cowl covering the weapon barrels.

Although I would really want to see the Stone Rhino with standard sized weapons, would be funny as hell to look at.

Edited by Lagster, 25 March 2015 - 06:17 PM.

[Sarlic]

Burktross, on 25 March 2015 - 04:45 PM, said:

Hahaha. Comedy gold! Good work.

[Weeny Machine]

That comic strip is spot on. I also wonder if the MWO devs are in dire need of women...so many nipples on mechs make me worried for them.

[Joseph Mallan]

Inadequate response!

Smaller is not teh right answer to a military issue.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 26 March 2015 - 03:36 AM.

[legionofvega]

Yeah I don't understand the unnatural love for stubby guns. I would be willing to bet that not a single customer of MWO wants stubby guns. So if your customer base doesn't want a product why do you bring it to market? Any one remember New Coke?

[Telmasa]

It's *kind-of* like the barrels got shoved back into the arms...which really, still (from an engineering perspective) doesn't explain why you wouldn't just lengthen the barrels again to further increase the range, without touching the caliber.

I'm not *as* bothered by it as most folks are, but, it does all seem like it's a very unnecessary change. I really don't feel like Jager arm hitboxes were oversized from the sides or anything, so it wasn't a gameplay issue...purely cosmetic.

*le shrug*

[Mawai]

Hans Von Lohman, on 25 March 2015 - 05:33 PM, said:

I think alot of this is due to the fact that an AC-5 on a light mech should be the same size as an AC-5 on an assault mech.

Battletech art is not a great source of logic after all.

In Battletech this was justified by having several different manufacturers and designs of weapons that effectively did the same amount of damage. Some were larger slower shells, others might be small fast shells, some might have a higher rate of fire of smaller shells fired in a burst ... but in game terms each would do 5 damage to one mech section in a 10 second game turn.

As a result an AC5 on a Kurita light mech might actually be quite a different weapon than an AC5 on a Davion assault mech ... thus the appearance and art could look very different.

In MWO, in order to make the weapon loadouts on mechs more visually identifiable to other players without using R to target and waiting for the info to show up (assuming you can even target the mech given ECM might be around) ... they have chosen to use one modular weapon model for an AC5 (and every other weapon) on any mech it might be installed on. This results in scaling issues. Light mechs are small ... and should be ... but then someone puts an AC20 on an Urbanmech for example and if this is going to be the same AC20 as is fitted to a Jager, Atlas and Hunchback then the size of the weapon is constrained by the geometry of the smallest mech it has to fit on and may look too small on the larger mechs.

A lot of these visual issues could be addressed by having a :"large" and "small" model of each weapon and installing the appropriate one on large or small mechs. The different sizes could simply be attributed to different weapons from different manufacturers.

However, another factor to keep in mind is that the larger guns likely also have larger hit boxes. In the case of the Jager with smaller guns the hit profile of the mech from the side may actually be much smaller due to the shorter guns and thus torso twisting may be much more effective now. The smaller guns may well work out to be a buff for the larger mechs in terms of hit boxes.

[CygnusX7]

I can understand why those who hold certain mechs close to their heart would be less than enthusiastic with the small guns.
I'm a newer fan of Battletech/mechs so it really doesn't bother me.

[Lily from animove]

I don't like the jager, yet when somethign like 40% mechtonnage is supposed to be those guns, and they are so tiny, what is the rets of the mech made of? empty air? Styrofoam?

Mawai, on 26 March 2015 - 05:33 AM, said:

In Battletech this was justified by having several different manufacturers and designs of weapons that effectively did the same amount of damage. Some were larger slower shells, others might be small fast shells, some might have a higher rate of fire of smaller shells fired in a burst ... but in game terms each would do 5 damage to one mech section in a 10 second game turn.

As a result an AC5 on a Kurita light mech might actually be quite a different weapon than an AC5 on a Davion assault mech ... thus the appearance and art could look very different.

In MWO, in order to make the weapon loadouts on mechs more visually identifiable to other players without using R to target and waiting for the info to show up (assuming you can even target the mech given ECM might be around) ... they have chosen to use one modular weapon model for an AC5 (and every other weapon) on any mech it might be installed on. This results in scaling issues. Light mechs are small ... and should be ... but then someone puts an AC20 on an Urbanmech for example and if this is going to be the same AC20 as is fitted to a Jager, Atlas and Hunchback then the size of the weapon is constrained by the geometry of the smallest mech it has to fit on and may look too small on the larger mechs.

A lot of these visual issues could be addressed by having a :"large" and "small" model of each weapon and installing the appropriate one on large or small mechs. The different sizes could simply be attributed to different weapons from different manufacturers.

However, another factor to keep in mind is that the larger guns likely also have larger hit boxes. In the case of the Jager with smaller guns the hit profile of the mech from the side may actually be much smaller due to the shorter guns and thus torso twisting may be much more effective now. The smaller guns may well work out to be a buff for the larger mechs in terms of hit boxes.

NO, its not an issue, an urban mech AC 20 could still be scaled smaller, because we do know guns have differet manufacturers, and so size differneces could be done. maybe an urbies AC 20 is a bit shorter and the barrle is not s thick.

[SgtMagor]

Maybe cause Jagger looked to much like a Rifleman, just sayin O_o