63 replies to this topic

[Mitsuragi]

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?

I'm with Alister on this one. I think weapon size should be exactly the same across all mechs regardless of class.

OP, great idea. I totally support your TBR rework and hope PGI picks it up. +1

[Rizzelbizzeg]

missile boxes needs fixed for all mechs imo. I like how you put the camo on the side of your smaller boxes, but that won't happen either ALL THE BLACK BOXES!!

[Hillslam]

Get in line behind fixes for Catapult and Jager.

Edited by Hillslam, 11 May 2015 - 09:25 AM.

[Navid A1]

Hillslam, on 11 May 2015 - 09:25 AM, said:

Get in line behind fixes for Catapult and Jager.

*moves to back of the line

Mister D, on 11 May 2015 - 03:05 AM, said:

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.

getting hitbox advantage using a different loadout should not be a thing IMO... specially on a TBR.
(even if that loadout is most effective regardless of hitboxes and profile)

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

[Hit the Deck]

Rizzelbizzeg, on 11 May 2015 - 08:09 AM, said:

missile boxes needs fixed for all mechs imo. I like how you put the camo on the side of your smaller boxes, but that won't happen either ALL THE BLACK BOXES!!

I prefer that they do it this way. I always like certain distinguishing features like weapon add-ons or cooling fins on mechs, tanks, other implement of wars, etc. to be as is in their original color so they are more prominent and can be easily identifiable.

Actually I wish that Atlas' AC/20 (ballistic) mount to be just black.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 11 May 2015 - 11:07 AM.

[Deathlike]

I think we should be happy that the Timberwolf didn't go the way of the Catapult.

I'd rather the Catapult be fixed first, but I think that currently is Lostech.

[Telmasa]

OMG, I love this idea!

I use SRM6/ERPPC Timberwolf...I only use two SRM6As, though, because I *hate* how the additional missile pods look when they cover up the cheeks & obscure my pretty "Pirate" paint job.

With your idea, that paint job would still be perfectly visible.

Probably not the biggest problem in the world to have, I know, but still! lol

[Navid A1]

Just noticed this.... consistency overload !



Once again... SOLUTION:

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Oh, well, IMHO, I would rather having everything in the Ears.

When I got my Timbers I neglected the Launchers, and did not like the added boxes in the middle of the frame.

Similar to how the Catapult Ears should also be, have the launchers scale better for any missile mech:

The smallest Ears would be less than a combined 10 tubes.

The next Ear Size would be for 15 to 10 tubes per Ear.

Than the next size up would be for 20 to 15 tubes.

Than possibly consider the largest possible size of 40 to 20 tubes (MRMs are around the corner for IS, so why not be ready for IS Missile hardpoints, 3058) and with available space, an LRM 20 and LRM 15 are technically possible to fit in a Timber.

On the matter of the A1, I think it would actually be better to have only two hardpoints in the Ears and move a single missile hard point to each side torso and have its tube count be a max of 6 there, but this idea could be its own topic.

Edited by Praetor Knight, 15 May 2015 - 07:46 AM.

[xDust]

I'd rather keep the dynamic shoulder pods, because an SRM6/LRM5 doesn't need that much unused space on the launcher. The aux launchers though, I do like the idea here.

But something else I'd like is more overhang on the shoulder pods. I feel like it'd feel more like a Timber Wolf if the pods hung over more to at least the side of the shoulder. Or make the shoulder less wide, and the arms come down more diagonally. (But obviously, this isn't happening.)

Edited by xDust, 15 May 2015 - 07:49 AM.

[TELEFORCE]

For small missile launchers (no bigger than ten tubes), I'd rather see them stacked up on the shoulders ("ears") rather than mounted on the side torsos. For example, the official BattleTech renditions of the Timber Wolf D and S variants stack the smaller launchers on the shoulders like this:

Edited by TELEFORCE, 15 May 2015 - 07:58 AM.

[arkani]

"quality of work" is something PGI does not have, and after almost 3 years if you have not noticed that for PIG MWO is just a "minimale viable product"...

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I'm not skilled enough to adjust missile pods using MS Paint, so I tried the next best thing coming up with the grid patterns for missile tube counts, that could be applied across different mechs, including the Timbers. And so I'm assuming 40 to maybe 45 should be the absolute limit for any single missile section.

So with Timbers, if a player decides to slap in two LRM 20s and two LRM 15s into their TBR-D torsos, than it should stick them into enlarged ears of 35 tubes.

Other missiles combos should then be able to still fit in the ears with it shrinking to fit the tube counts.

If a player takes an AWS-8R and slaps four LRM 15s into its torsos, than there should be the enlarged grid for 30 tubes each side torso. The AWS-8V could be the special case of allowing 45 displayed tubes for its side torso.

CPLT's would follow the same pattern, and also Griffins and Thunderbolts would be nice to see a similar patterning with their cool circular Missile Pods.

[Navid A1]

Praetor Knight, on 15 May 2015 - 09:15 AM, said:

I'm not skilled enough to adjust missile pods using MS Paint, so I tried the next best thing coming up with the grid patterns for missile tube counts, that could be applied across different mechs, including the Timbers. And so I'm assuming 40 to maybe 45 should be the absolute limit for any single missile section.

So with Timbers, if a player decides to slap in two LRM 20s and two LRM 15s into their TBR-D torsos, than it should stick them into enlarged ears of 35 tubes.

Other missiles combos should then be able to still fit in the ears with it shrinking to fit the tube counts.

If a player takes an AWS-8R and slaps four LRM 15s into its torsos, than there should be the enlarged grid for 30 tubes each side torso. The AWS-8V could be the special case of allowing 45 displayed tubes for its side torso.

CPLT's would follow the same pattern, and also Griffins and Thunderbolts would be nice to see a similar patterning with their cool circular Missile Pods.

The problem with dynamic geometry and the current mwo mechanism is that you will require a very large number of model textures to cover all combinations.

Mwo uses nodes for its weapon placement... and the geometries on these nodes should not overlap... that is a limitation currently, otherwise your suggestion is very good.

xDust, on 15 May 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

I'd rather keep the dynamic shoulder pods, because an SRM6/LRM5 doesn't need that much unused space on the launcher. The aux launchers though, I do like the idea here.

But something else I'd like is more overhang on the shoulder pods. I feel like it'd feel more like a Timber Wolf if the pods hung over more to at least the side of the shoulder. Or make the shoulder less wide, and the arms come down more diagonally. (But obviously, this isn't happening.)

well i think there are two reasons it should use that box size for srm6/lrm5:
- Timberwolf should not get hitbox advantage when using a certain missile type (which is also considered a superior build compared to large LRMs.)
- The iconic shape and profile of the timber should be the same at all times.

[xDust]

Navid A1, on 15 May 2015 - 12:26 PM, said:

well i think there are two reasons it should use that box size for srm6/lrm5:
- Timberwolf should not get hitbox advantage when using a certain missile type (which is also considered a superior build compared to large LRMs.)
- The iconic shape and profile of the timber should be the same at all times.

While I agree about the hitbox problems, according to TELEFORCE's post:

Spoiler

TELEFORCE, on 15 May 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

For small missile launchers (no bigger than ten tubes), I'd rather see them stacked up on the shoulders ("ears") rather than mounted on the side torsos. For example, the official BattleTech renditions of the Timber Wolf D and S variants stack the smaller launchers on the shoulders like this:

The half-boxes would be reasonably justified.

[Navid A1]

xDust, on 15 May 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

While I agree about the hitbox problems, according to TELEFORCE's post:

Spoiler

The half-boxes would be reasonably justified.

They would. However, they can not be implemented using the current system.
for example, in that system, you can not have a full box + a half box without overlapping. (like a big lrm + srms) and node positions are fixed in place.

(i should say that it would be awesome if PGI could lay the ground work for a new mechanism to allow dynamic nodes)

[xDust]

Navid A1, on 15 May 2015 - 02:45 PM, said:

They would. However, they can not be implemented using the current system.
for example, in that system, you can not have a full box + a half box without overlapping. (like a big lrm + srms) and node positions are fixed in place.

(i should say that it would be awesome if PGI could lay the ground work for a new mechanism to allow dynamic nodes)

No, of course not. That means that we'll have to stick with the current system as is for the shoulders. But the original proposed ideas for fixing the aux racks are still good.

[Moldur]

Custom/locked geometry for certain mechs instead of the standard dynamic geometry is a great idea in general.

I was a little sad when I took off all my Timbers' ears.

[Navid A1]

[Kristian Radoulov]

I'd be for this.