63 replies to this topic

[Navid A1]

THE ISSUE:
Its pretty straight forward: Timber wolf has an iconic shape... its ears (missile racks). Current dynamic weapon visuals removes those iconic boxes and replaces them with boxy boxes and extra large auxiliary boxes. Moreover, it give the timberwolf an unintended hitbox advantage by removing those. (this dynamic visuals also have done a perfect job of giving weird looks to mechs like catapults, jaggers, phracts....)

To see the effect more clearly, you can look how 2 LRM 15s on one side torso looks like:



Or... 2 SRM 6 racks on one side torso:



Can someone explain why the auxiliary boxes are the same size for both LRM15 and SRM6 ?... but the sizes are different for the main missile rack?
Its weird.




SOLUTION:
Instead of leaving the choice of designing the dynamic weapons to your modelers.... LET ALEX DESIGN THOSE.....PLEASE !


SUGGESTION:
These 2 pics took only 10 minutes... 10 !
Not saying that they are good... but an attempt to save the original looks of the mech while having dynamic visuals. At the same time, preventing the timby from getting un-intended hitbox advantages.

and this one:




Summary:

Edited by Navid A1, 23 June 2015 - 06:50 PM.

[FatYak]

Cant like this enough

Great idea

Be good if the curved launcher you have here had the mechs camo over the top, to blend them in

Very nice indeed

Edited by FatYak, 10 May 2015 - 06:54 PM.

[Hit the Deck]

Yeah, I hate those too big auxiliary missile pods. They just don't look nice.

[FupDup]

I like the curved torso pods.

However, I don't think that small launchers like the SRM6 need to have such a large expanse of unused blank surface area. It looks ugly on all of the other mechs that have it, and it doesn't look good here either. Too many mechs use the generic boxy missile pods already...

[MauttyKoray]

I'm actually a fan of the design personally. Yeah, its a bit excessive, but its only on a single variant. It makes the variant stand out more from the standard single launcher 'ear' mechs. Just like the Mad Dog gets the ST sub-launcher style tubes added on. Its different and varies the mech up in a way that isn't seen normally.

[LordNothing]

i personally want high autocannon only pods. im pretty sure ive seen a varient like that somewhere.

[Navid A1]

MauttyKoray, on 10 May 2015 - 07:52 PM, said:

I'm actually a fan of the design personally. Yeah, its a bit excessive, but its only on a single variant. It makes the variant stand out more from the standard single launcher 'ear' mechs. Just like the Mad Dog gets the ST sub-launcher style tubes added on. Its different and varies the mech up in a way that isn't seen normally.

yes, but the maddog sub-launchers do not change the mech's profile, general appearance and hitboxes. yet the timber stops being a timber when a single srm 6 rack puts a huge box on top if its head or takes away the ears. (also, timby is an omni mech...there is no..um.. variant ! )

IMO, srm 6 in the main missile rack should only shrink the box a little bit not cutting it to less than half the size.

Edited by Navid A1, 10 May 2015 - 09:23 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

MWO scaling is really tricky though. PGI has started adjusting the size of PPCs and lasers in the dynamic geometry, to avoid major inconsistencies. But I doubt they will ever do anything like that with missiles. Compare the size of SRM6 boxes on the Timber Wolf with the Locust, for example.

http://mwomercs.com/...t/locust/lct-3s

This isn't about me trying to buff the Timber Wolf even further. I prefer to run the TBR with LRMs, because nostalgia. But it really brings me down when I look at the Highlander, for example, which has a HUGE SRM6 box in its left torso, and tiny SRM6 boxes attached to its arms. Why can't the diameter of all SRMs and LRMs be consistent, regardless of their location and mech? Just like AC barrels. Why are Highlander SRM warheads 10 times bigger than Locust SRM warheads?

It grinds my gears.

But on the other, wouldn't it be a disaster if the Locust had CPLT-sized arms, like an Inner Sphere Mist Lynx?

Edited by Alistair Winter, 10 May 2015 - 09:28 PM.

[Navid A1]

Alistair Winter, on 10 May 2015 - 09:28 PM, said:

MWO scaling is really tricky though. PGI has started adjusting the size of PPCs and lasers in the dynamic geometry, to avoid major inconsistencies. But I doubt they will ever do anything like that with missiles. Compare the size of SRM6 boxes on the Timber Wolf with the Locust, for example.

http://mwomercs.com/...t/locust/lct-3s

This isn't about me trying to buff the Timber Wolf even further. I prefer to run the TBR with LRMs, because nostalgia. But it really brings me down when I look at the Highlander, for example, which has a HUGE SRM6 box in its left torso, and tiny SRM6 boxes attached to its arms. Why can't the diameter of all SRMs and LRMs be consistent, regardless of their location and mech? Just like AC barrels. Why are Highlander SRM warheads 10 times bigger than Locust SRM warheads?

It grinds my gears.

But on the other, wouldn't it be a disaster if the Locust had CPLT-sized arms, like an Inner Sphere Mist Lynx?

comparing srm racks on two different chassis as different as the locust and timber is not a good measuring stick IMO. Consistency is not considered by modelers even on a single chassis like the timber, the auxiliary launcher size is the same for both LRM 15 and SRM 6 while their size are different for the main missile rack on the same chassis.

you can see the same thing with a medium laser on both the kitfox and the mist lynx:

Spoiler

Man...that kit fox is huuuggee


On a side note, I too run my timbers with LRM rack (because nostalgia) and it makes me sad seeing all the ear-less timbies running around using an un-intended advantage on their hitbox profiles.

Edited by Navid A1, 10 May 2015 - 10:20 PM.

[process]

Navid A1, on 10 May 2015 - 10:01 PM, said:

On a side note, I too run my timbers with LRM rack (because nostalgia) and it makes me sad seeing all the ear-less timbies running around using an un-intended advantage on their hitbox profiles.

I would love an excuse to run with big ol' LRM boxes, sadly they just aren't as viable as laz0rs.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I don't hate the idea, but good luck with that.

The Catapult pilots have been trying to get a proper Cat A1 arm fix for a LONG time. The thread is over 60 pages and it hasn't swayed PGI one bit.

Basically, you can try, and hopefully it will do something. Most likely it won't though, so I'd learn to like it the way it is.

[Navid A1]

MeiSooHaityu, on 11 May 2015 - 02:10 AM, said:

I don't hate the idea, but good luck with that.

The Catapult pilots have been trying to get a proper Cat A1 arm fix for a LONG time. The thread is over 60 pages and it hasn't swayed PGI one bit.

Basically, you can try, and hopefully it will do something. Most likely it won't though, so I'd learn to like it the way it is.

I'm there in the catapult front as well... creating image mock-ups here and there and spreading it over PGI's social networks. I've posted russ's last answer there on page 65. And my catapult suggestion on page 63.

Edited by Navid A1, 11 May 2015 - 02:28 AM.

[Vandul]

Hollis Incorporated called, said get in line.

[Cyborne Elemental]

Always bothered me as well.

WIth SRM2/SSRM2 you get the nice little pods, why can't SRM4/6+LRM5 at least use that smaller aux pod as well.

Dunno about SRM-6 sharing the giant pod size of the LRM10/15/20 on primary racks, I think most guys would want the smaller ones at least for SRM loads keeping profile down for brawling.

Great idea though Navid.

[bad arcade kitty]

why does it even need auxiliary pods for srm-6, his ears are big enough to take both launchers, they are just boxes after all

[MeiSooHaityu]

bad arcade kitty, on 11 May 2015 - 03:10 AM, said:

why does it even need auxiliary pods for srm-6, his ears are big enough to take both launchers, they are just boxes after all

Thought the same with the Catapult as well.

I think there is a technical reason. I don't think weapon hard point locations can overlap. That's why auxiliary pods are needed. An extra weapon launcher can't overlap an existing launcher.

In any case, the OPs idea looks good and solid. The additional hard points are separate and more streamlined so I think it fits the limitations of the weapon hard point setup.

It should work if PGI wishes to revisit. At least the TW is newer and more popular, so PGI might be MORE likely to update it vs the Catapult A1.

[bad arcade kitty]

>I think there is a technical reason. I don't think weapon hard point locations can overlap.

but there will be no overlapping, they could just place one srm-6 launcher on top of another and put this cube on the timber's shoulder

Edited by bad arcade kitty, 11 May 2015 - 04:20 AM.

[SaltBeef]

I like the current one. Your shark gilled launcher does not look bad either.

[MeiSooHaityu]

bad arcade kitty, on 11 May 2015 - 04:20 AM, said:

>I think there is a technical reason. I don't think weapon hard point locations can overlap.

but there will be no overlapping, they could just place one srm-6 launcher on top of another and put this cube on the timber's shoulder

That's true, they could do that. I'm guessing they don't because the side torsos would become a bigger target. I'm not sure I'd have a problem with that, but I could see some people taking issue with it.

[CDLord HHGD]

I like the redesign of the torso pods but I like the dynamics of the shoulder pods. Gives them a "futuristic" feel when compared to the CPLT (oh and return the CPLT's pods to beta!).