147 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

[627]

I really like the Ironman hand

[Juodas Varnas]

627, on 06 July 2015 - 11:50 PM, said:

I really like the Ironman hand

Looks more like a Drone from X-com

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 06 July 2015 - 11:52 PM.

[627]

Juodas Varnas, on 06 July 2015 - 11:52 PM, said:

Looks more like a Drone from X-com

I like that, too

[Thunder Child]

DO NOT WANT!
DOOOO NOOOOT WAAAANT!

Okay, now that I've gotten that out of my system.....

PPC. Particle. Projectile. CANNON.
Cannon. As in Big F...off Gun style, CANNON!

Don't get me wrong, it's awesome (no pun intended) that PGI is changing all the things.

But, PARTICLE. PROJECTILE. CANNON!

Also, not fussed on how the camo gets overwritten by these great big black patches. Especially on Premium Mechs like the Pretty Baby and both Hero Dragons. I actually like the camos on those. I dunno. In lore, mechs had fixed weapons that were integrated into the chassis. These are looking more and more like lego toys, that can interchange any component whenever they feel like it.
I suppose it's the Lore Purist in me getting all pissy about it.

Still. It is progress.

Edited by Thunder Child, 07 July 2015 - 12:19 AM.

[Turist0AT]

are catapults still look silly?

[stjobe]

Sorry PGI, but

• Variable geometry shouldn't just mean "let's show all possible hardpoints". If you have no weapons in a certain location, just don't show the hardpoints. Prime example is the CN9's right arm, where a single AC sits in the top spot with an empty spot below, instead of being centered in the arm. It's ugly.
  
• Nobody ever asked for the CN9's arm to become bigger. Lots of people asked for the gun barrel to become bigger.
  
• Non-paintable areas are bad. Why spend money on a camo when half the 'mech doesn't even take the camo?
  
• 'Mechs aren't supposed to be made up of interchangeable parts, they are each and every one of them custom-built. Why do you insist on making them look like someone just forgot to add in the rest of the weapons?

Variable geometry is a great idea, but your Lego-mech implementation of it is bad, and you should feel bad.

[Juodas Varnas]

stjobe, on 07 July 2015 - 12:10 AM, said:

Sorry PGI, but

• Variable geometry shouldn't just mean "let's show all possible hardpoints". If you have no weapons in a certain location, just don't show the hardpoints. Prime example is the CN9's right arm, where a single AC sits in the top spot with an empty spot below, instead of being centered in the arm. It's ugly.
  
• Nobody ever asked for the CN9's arm to become bigger. Lots of people asked for the gun barrel to become bigger.
  
• Non-paintable areas are bad. Why spend money on a camo when half the 'mech doesn't even take the camo?
  
• 'Mechs aren't supposed to be made up of interchangeable parts, they are each and every one of them custom-built. Why do you insist on making them look like someone just forgot to add in the rest of the weapons?

Variable geometry is a great idea, but your Lego-mech implementation of it is bad, and you should feel bad.

On the 2nd point i disagree, because, well, I actually like the larger arm on the CN9. Sure it's detrimental and will make it much easier to shoot-off, but it looks ok.
NOWHERE NEAR as good as the "non-dynamic" model from ye olde times, but it's ok.

I do wholeheartedly agree on all the other points. I'd also add, that putting [X]s on unused hardpoint boxes looks incredibly stupid (not to mention ugly) and makes zero sense whatsoever.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 07 July 2015 - 12:21 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Cent looks good now
Dragon good
cicada good
comando got away with it, because PGI don't scale weapons properly
Awesome god awful because PGI don't scale weapons properly

Heavens above PGI

You scale the weapons for LARGE mechs...this is because large weapons are LARGE.. and stops the mech looking DUMB.

Then PENALISE SMALL mechs, for taking a large weapon

Edited by Cathy, 07 July 2015 - 12:27 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

stjobe, on 07 July 2015 - 12:10 AM, said:

Sorry PGI, but

• Variable geometry shouldn't just mean "let's show all possible hardpoints". If you have no weapons in a certain location, just don't show the hardpoints. Prime example is the CN9's right arm, where a single AC sits in the top spot with an empty spot below, instead of being centered in the arm. It's ugly.
  
• Nobody ever asked for the CN9's arm to become bigger. Lots of people asked for the gun barrel to become bigger.
  
• Non-paintable areas are bad. Why spend money on a camo when half the 'mech doesn't even take the camo?
  
• 'Mechs aren't supposed to be made up of interchangeable parts, they are each and every one of them custom-built. Why do you insist on making them look like someone just forgot to add in the rest of the weapons?

Variable geometry is a great idea, but your Lego-mech implementation of it is bad, and you should feel bad.

Actually a lot of people did ask for the gun arm of the Cent to be bigger.

The rest of your post is very valid though.

[Lucian Nostra]

Beh PPCs to small, continuing the bloat of arms for deadspace if not all hardpoints filled, and those stupid box lasers.. Imagine if all Battletech art had been done with box lasers like mwo zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Edited by Lucian Nostra, 07 July 2015 - 12:32 AM.

[stjobe]

Juodas Varnas, on 07 July 2015 - 12:14 AM, said:

On the 2nd point i disagree, because, well, I actually like the larger arm on the CN9. Sure it's detrimental and will make it much easier to shoot-off, but it looks ok.
NOWHERE NEAR as good as the "non-dynamic" model from ye olde times, but it's ok.

People asked for larger gun, not larger arm.
They increased the size of the arm but the gun barrel is the same teeny-tiny size.

And it's off-centre with a dead hardpoint below it.

It's fscking ugly.

Cathy, on 07 July 2015 - 12:20 AM, said:

Cent looks good now

No, it does not. You see, I didn't just forget to put a weapon in the lower arm hardpoint.

Cathy, on 07 July 2015 - 12:20 AM, said:

comando ok

Did you even see the ridiculous tube-bracelet on the right arm? With tacked-on launchers tacked onto tacked-on launchers? Did you see that the stupid freaking laser-box on the left arm put the PPC off-center?

Cathy, on 07 July 2015 - 12:27 AM, said:

Actually a lot of people did ask for the gun arm of the Cent to be bigger.

Really. Quote me a post asking for the arm to get bigger while the gun barrel stays the same size.

People wanted a bigger gun barrel, like the old arm - not a bigger arm with the same puny gun barrel.

[Deathlike]

stjobe, on 07 July 2015 - 12:32 AM, said:

People asked for larger gun, not larger arm.
They increased the size of the arm but the gun barrel is the same teeny-tiny size.

And it's off-centre with a dead hardpoint below it.

It's fscking ugly.

Have you seen what the 3rd MG does to the Centurion? Hello HBK-4G.

Edited by Deathlike, 07 July 2015 - 12:40 AM.

[Hit the Deck]

I, for one, really like the black unpainted areas when they are special (gun mounts, special geo, etc) and that the guns themselves are black. This creates contrast which IMO great to look at.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

stjobe, on 07 July 2015 - 12:32 AM, said:

Did you even see the ridiculous tube-bracelet on the right arm? With tacked-on launchers tacked onto tacked-on launchers? Did you see that the stupid freaking laser-box on the left arm put the PPC off-center?

I actually like the tube-bracelet. While I agree the tacked-on launchers is a problem with the missile implementation overall. I would much rather see missiles limited by number of tubes rather than actual hardpoints; that to me is the main problem and why they have to do the legomech approach like they do, well for missiles anyway.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 07 July 2015 - 12:49 AM.

[Juodas Varnas]

Hit the Deck, on 07 July 2015 - 12:43 AM, said:

I, for one, really like the black unpainted areas when they are special (gun mounts, special geo, etc) and that the guns themselves are black. This creates contrast which IMO great to look at.

I've read this multiple times and still can't decide if it's sarcasm or not.

WM Quicksilver, on 07 July 2015 - 12:48 AM, said:

I actually like the tube-bracelet. While I agree the tacked-on launchers is a problem with the missile implementation overall. I would much rather see missiles limited by number of tubes rather than actual hardpoints; that to me is the main problem and why they have to do the legomech approach like they do, well for missiles anyway.

That's exactly what i was thinking about Missiles.

For example, let's say, TDR-5S has a 20 missiles tube drum on his shoulder. So you can either put in a 20 missile LRM20, or 3 SRM6s for the total amount of 18 missiles.
What i WOULD suggest is limiting them by BOTH, so for example that drum would have 20 missile tube AND 3 hardpoint limit. So you couldn't use 4 LRM5s (which would be objectively better) over a LRM20 or something. I haven't slept well, so my brain's all fuzzy, but i hope it's clear what i mean.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 07 July 2015 - 12:53 AM.

[Nightshade24]

I personally am not that pissed about the PPC's.
And they still look bigger then MW4's awesome which had no complains:


However I am curious about the whole missile placement...

PGI. if it isn't to much to ask... can we have the first missiles come from the lowest section to the highest instead of highest to lower?... I know htis is more of a disadvantage but it feels how to say... "more logical" ? in terms of the awesomes heritage and such...

It feels kinda weird for the awesome to have LRM's up high so to say on the ST's and nothing bellow... I can adapt, but still... something to consider?

I wouldn't mind if this is LRM only and SRM's can go from highest to lowest...




However my biggest problem I have with you PGI... this is blatantly unacceptable.

You made most of the mechs sexy especially the hero ones AFTER the sale has passed for them!
Now I want the X5, Pretty baby, Dragon Fang and Flame, etc even more now then ever!!! I mean.... THAT MISSILE ARM FOR THE AWESOME PRETTY BABY!

Why isn't the gargoyle or executioner that sexy with the god damn missile arm with the ugly hand stumps or with the spammed energy arm with no hand? ;~;

I do hope most of clan wave II and the gargoyle E and M arm gets similar treatment soon... For now I will buy one of the hero mechs, impress me and I'll buy more.

stjobe, on 07 July 2015 - 12:32 AM, said:

-snip-

That missile arm on the commando is the exact reason why I'm buying a 4th and 5th commando right now as we speak.

[Steve Pryde]

I want my big ppcs on my Awesome back. Now I think I should get a twitter account...

[Hit the Deck]

Juodas Varnas, on 07 July 2015 - 12:49 AM, said:

I've read this multiple times and still can't decide if it's sarcasm or not.
...

What I said is not a sarcasm It's like upgrading or replacing your rice burner body parts with some carbon fibre panels. I like these panels not painted so they stand out.

[The Mech behind you]

Cicada: Out of the 4 mechs that got the new weapon geometry, this one looks best. Even the PPCs look good on the Cicada. Also that PPC on top of the RT and higher than Cockpit. Hill humping Cicadas incoming!

Dragon: IMO the second best looking of the 4. I like the new RA. This looks mean. But that LA It looks so weird with those tiny PPCs.

Awesome: While I like the new missile launchers, the PPCs are so small. At least the placement on the ST is ok.

Commandos: Those missile arms Please PGI, give them some durability quirks or they will fall off on the first hit.

Centurion RA: Looks much better. I actually like how the forearm thickens when you put a cannon on the arm.