172 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

MischiefSC, on 07 July 2015 - 12:03 PM, said:

Ac5 single shell per shot is a 203mm weapon, thats about 8 inches

I really don't want to argue this, but no. AC/5 is generally fluffed as being 30-90mm, burst- or continuous-fire.
The '5' in its designation means it fires 5 kg of ammo per second down-range, or 50 kg if in a single shell - roughly equivalent to a contemporary 150mm round.

MischiefSC, on 07 July 2015 - 12:03 PM, said:

Do what we have is confirmation that realistic doesn't equate to looking cool.

It's not even "realistic", much less realistic. And it looks like crap.

[Alistair Winter]

We disagree about a lot of things, Bishop. Most things, it seems like. But we almost never disagree on aesthetics, as far as I can tell.

I'm as gutted as you are.

[Wildstreak]

Well, I looked over the 3 Awesomes I still have (sold off my 8T and 8V some time ago). I do wonder what will happen since the Awesome will probably win one of those 5 re-scaling spots.
The 8Q is not bad to me.

Spoiler

The 8R is not horrible, if anything people will try to figure out how to push LRMs into those top spots.

Spoiler

Now the second Missile launcher in the Pretty Baby's arm, how the HELL does it fit in that fin circled?

Spoiler

Edited by Wildstreak, 07 July 2015 - 12:18 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

DaZur, on 07 July 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

Actually... Having seen this up close and personal (I have the exact same config) It's actually quite appealing while still being a little underwhelming.

I'd a say moderate increase of maybe 10% to the mech'areolas would be sufficient enough to arouse even the most persnickety pilot...

the RA actually bugs me more than the man boobs.

Wildstreak, on 07 July 2015 - 11:51 AM, said:

Apparently some people like the Cicada changes. They gave the Cicada a nice sized LRM20 on the X-5 seen from the link in the OP of the Cicada topic. I have yet to go in and see my Awesomes or the Centurions either. I note skimming this topic no one mentions the 8R and what happened for its 4 Lanucher possibilities, part of me is cringing.


I thought we were just like those articles showing from Gen X, a selfish individualism trend that explains many things even in games such as:
- why people demand what they want over what is best for the game and community.
- part of why people do not join teams. (Not the only reason.)
- other stuff.


Hucnhbacks never got their lasers changed, they still have those tiny, tiny tubes even when using Larges.

Cicada came out OK, mostly, CN9 forearm is improved and the DRG looks pretty solid. Commando...eh.....YMMV.

[LordBraxton]

PGI, and especially Russ\Paul, are incredibly arrogant from what I can tell. They never apologize, never admit mistakes, and when they come close, end up blaming someone else, like staff who quit, or IGP.

I knew it'd be terrible and it's terrible

Thanks for making more IS mechs look like ****

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 07 July 2015 - 12:03 PM, said:

Ac5 single shell per shot is a 203mm weapon, thats about 8 inches. Given the insanely short range they have a short barrel almost makes sense.

So what we have is confirmation that realistic doesn't equate to looking cool.

actually most canon ac5s are between 90-120mm. Only listed 203mm is the UAC20 on the Cauldron Born, where others like the Pontiac is a 150mm, and the Chemjet a 180mm.

Alistair Winter, on 07 July 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

We disagree about a lot of things, Bishop. Most things, it seems like. But we almost never disagree on aesthetics, as far as I can tell.

I'm as gutted as you are.

yes, though at least we (usually) manage to respectfully disagree. Too many roid ragers on the forums.

Wildstreak, on 07 July 2015 - 12:17 PM, said:

Well, I looked over the 3 Awesomes I still have (sold off my 8T and 8V some time ago). I do wonder what will happen since the Awesome will probably win one of those 5 re-scaling spots.
The 8Q is not bad to me.

Spoiler

The 8R is not horrible, if anything people will try to figure out how to push LRMs into those top spots.

Spoiler

Now the second Missile launcher in the Pretty Baby's arm, how the HELL does it fit in that fin circled?

Spoiler

good part is you can push the PPCs in your 8Q to the upper ports. Not a huge jump, but it makes more sense than the lasers.

LordBraxton, on 07 July 2015 - 12:20 PM, said:

PGI, and especially Russ\Paul, are incredibly arrogant from what I can tell. They never apologize, never admit mistakes, and when they come close, end up blaming someone else, like staff who quit, or IGP.

I knew it'd be terrible and it's terrible

Thanks for making more IS mechs look like ****

Not that they actually need to "apologize" (it is their game) but to me the best type of apology is like this
https://twitter.com/...515813335633920

Mind you, I think this is actually referring to some reported bug to the AWS CT (which I sure don't seem to get on mine...drat cheated again!) but still. Fast is good.

Just sayin

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 07 July 2015 - 12:32 PM.

[Thunder Child]

To be honest, I can live with most of the changes. EVEN the TINY Particle Projectile CANNONS.

But the one thing I really despise is the blank grey spots on the camo when you have empty hardpoints. Could you not just leave the camo unmolested if no weapon is mounted? Also, the Nose Weapons on the dragon.... Why? My Fang and Flame will NEVER leave the hangar now. I used to take them out for walks occasionally, but now?

Don't get me wrong. Great patch. But the cosmetic details could have used a bit of finesse, instead of just brutally plastering our beautiful (and paid for) camos with unsightly blackheads.

[RedDragon]

Maybe, just mayyyybeee you should stop throwing money at them when they disappoint you again and again? Who can blame them?
"Should we invest time and work into fixing those things?"
"Nah, they buy the packs regardless. Who cares about the bitching afterwards?"

[Nathan Foxbane]

I think PGI has a weapon geometry modeling problem. They are so focused on the visual shortcut of modular weapons, they are forgetting the visual aesthetic is a big part of each 'Mech. This patch the Commando and Awesome are the biggest offenders, but as noted with the missiles on the Dragon there are some other flaws too. Each set of weapon changes should be tailored to the individual 'Mech, so the weapons do not come out looking too small or like they were just haphazardly slapped on.

I would love to see the reasoning why we cannot see the return of variable tube counts. The Dragon for example, rather than random extra tubes in the center of the nose, we know the Dragon has a max tube count of 10 anyways, so why can PGI not just fit the twin SRM 4s in the bloody LRM 10 positions and close up one tube on each side? I mean it just needs some code to track how many tubes and you could actually reduce the amount of code for art assets! Oh, you put in a Streak 2 and an SRM 4? We will display the SRM 6 art asset, so it looks nice and clean. SRM 4 and LRM 5? SRMs down one side and LRMs down the other. For any given 'Mech with multiple missile hardpoints in the same location, there is a finite number of combinations based on available critical space in the location, tube count restrictions on hardpoints, and order in which the launchers are placed. The art need not be restricted to the hardpoints alone unless the hardpoint is part of the stock visual (like the Streaks on the Highlander IIC). One ends up with the above Dragon example, where the latter result is cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing than the current implementation. It may also be faster art wise too.

Ballistics are in an acceptable place other than the need to adjust scaling so they look of reasonable relative size of the 'Mech they are mounted on. The Gauss Rifle could be larger, though its length is fine.

Energy, also need some work. Mostly PPC sizing, they are big weapons and they should not be so small on many of the larger 'Mechs. Lasers could use an extended length model at the least (Warhawk and Mad Dog need this badly), though sized lenses would be nice they are not something one notices much in a fight.

External hardpoint bulk. There is a great deal of weirdness going on here. Commandos being the most current example, with their left arm energy. As pointed out in another thread only the TDK has two energy hardpoints on the left arm. Why would the other variants of the Commando need the large pod when they can mount only one weapon, if any? Noted in the same thread is the absurdness which is the multiple weapon hardpoints. When two Streaks are mounted on the right arm it gets a pod for the first Streak, and a massive, awkward looking LRM 5 pod with three plugged ports. This is a matter with varying degrees of terrible ever since the infamous Catapult VCR's were introduced.

TL;DR?

PGI needs to take a serious look at how they go about weapon geometry because:

• The extraneous missile rack thing is getting ridiculous.
  
• Ballistics could use some scaling work with a bias toward larger 'Mechs.
  
• PPCs are too small and Lasers could use an alternate model with a barrel on some 'Mechs for aesthetic reasons.
  
• The external weapon housing geometry size is getting out of hand, scale it to the available number of hardpoints on a variant, not the largest number available amongst all variants.

[stjobe]

Nathan Foxbane, on 07 July 2015 - 12:48 PM, said:

I think PGI has a weapon geometry modeling problem. They are so focused on the visual shortcut of modular weapons, they are forgetting the visual aesthetic is a big part of each 'Mech. This patch the Commando and Awesome are the biggest offenders, but as noted with the missiles on the Dragon there are some other flaws too. Each set of weapon changes should be tailored to the individual 'Mech, so the weapons do not come out looking too small or like they were just haphazardly slapped on.

I would love to see the reasoning why we cannot see the return of variable tube counts. The Dragon for example, rather than random extra tubes in the center of the nose, we know the Dragon has a max tube count of 10 anyways, so why can PGI not just fit the twin SRM 4s in the bloody LRM 10 positions and close up one tube on each side? I mean it just needs some code to track how many tubes and you could actually reduce the amount of code for art assets! Oh, you put in a Streak 2 and an SRM 4? We will display the SRM 6 art asset, so it looks nice and clean. SRM 4 and LRM 5? SRMs down one side and LRMs down the other. For any given 'Mech with multiple missile hardpoints in the same location, there is a finite number of combinations based on available critical space in the location, tube count restrictions on hardpoints, and order in which the launchers are placed. The art need not be restricted to the hardpoints alone unless the hardpoint is part of the stock visual (like the Streaks on the Highlander IIC). One ends up with the above Dragon example, where the latter result is cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing than the current implementation. It may also be faster art wise too.

Ballistics are in an acceptable place other than the need to adjust scaling so they look of reasonable relative size of the 'Mech they are mounted on. The Gauss Rifle could be larger, though its length is fine.

Energy, also need some work. Mostly PPC sizing, they are big weapons and they should not be so small on many of the larger 'Mechs. Lasers could use an extended length model at the least (Warhawk and Mad Dog need this badly), though sized lenses would be nice they are not something one notices much in a fight.

External hardpoint bulk. There is a great deal of weirdness going on here. Commandos being the most current example, with their left arm energy. As pointed out in another thread only the TDK has two energy hardpoints on the left arm. Why would the other variants of the Commando need the large pod when they can mount only one weapon, if any? Noted in the same thread is the absurdness which is the multiple weapon hardpoints. When two Streaks are mounted on the right arm it gets a pod for the first Streak, and a massive, awkward looking LRM 5 pod with three plugged ports. This is a matter with varying degrees of terrible ever since the infamous Catapult VCR's were introduced.

TL;DR?

PGI needs to take a serious look at how they go about weapon geometry because:

• The extraneous missile rack thing is getting ridiculous.
  
• Ballistics could use some scaling work with a bias toward larger 'Mechs.
  
• PPCs are too small and Lasers could use an alternate model with a barrel on some 'Mechs for aesthetic reasons.
  
• The external weapon housing geometry size is getting out of hand, scale it to the available number of hardpoints on a variant, not the largest number available amongst all variants.

Quoted because just liking this post is not enough. Excellent analysis, Nathan.

Edit: Also, NavidA1 made this gif for the "Fixed Catapult geometry has broken the A1" thread, which shows how easy it would be to build up different variations of LRM launchers with just a few basic building blocks:

Edited by stjobe, 07 July 2015 - 01:12 PM.

[Dawnstealer]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 July 2015 - 08:17 AM, said:

so,......somebody stole the hatchetman's hatchet...and strapped a meat cleaver to his forearm as a consolation prize?

Well, it fits the context of this thread, at least......

Figured it fit more with MWO's style. Think of the problems of having a separate hatchet model attached to the mech.

Yess. And if the Abrams was packing a 20mm Bushmaster, that weapon size makes sense.

Bishop Steiner, on 07 July 2015 - 08:17 AM, said:

Not so much for a 120mm Rheinmetall. THAT is the point of dynamic weaponry.

This I agree with.

[MischiefSC]

The Defiance J is a single 203mm field gun round. The Whirlwind is a 105mm gun that shoots 3 rounds. There are a number of other ac5 models that are more autocannon and less field gun, all classed as ac5.

So the IS designs are all the big bore single round acs and the clans have smaller bore burst fire acs.

All of which is irrelevant to the rule of cool.

Which the new tiny guns fail.

Edited to add -

The fluff swings wildly on muzzle size regardless of ac class. Again, a moot point. Tiny guns suck on big robbits.

Edited by MischiefSC, 07 July 2015 - 01:41 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 07 July 2015 - 01:15 PM, said:

The Defiance J is a single 203mm field gun round. The Whirlwind is a 105mm gun that shoots 3 rounds. There are a number of other ac5 models that are more autocannon and less field gun, all classed as ac5.

So the IS designs are all the big bore single round acs and the clans have smaller bore burst fire acs.

All of which is irrelevant to the rule of cool.

Which the new tiny guns fail.

source, out of curiosity? Sometimes my web fu fails.

[Carrioncrows]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 July 2015 - 10:46 AM, said:

and yet, I got Russ looking into resizing the PPCs on the K2, and now the AWS. The CN9 has had two passes on the RA (not perfect, but better with each).

So while I am under no delusion of seeing everything fixed, if I can get some of the worst offenders looked at, it's a win in my book.

Yes Thank you for that.

Pulling artists and designers away from doing "new" stuff to work on stuff that has ZERO impact in the game aside how it looks in the mech lab.

Bravo!

[redacted]

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 08 July 2015 - 10:06 AM.
Unconstructive

[Bishop Steiner]

Carrioncrows, on 07 July 2015 - 01:43 PM, said:

Yes Thank you for that.

Pulling artists and designers away from doing "new" stuff to work on stuff that has ZERO impact in the game aside how it looks in the mech lab.

Bravo!

[redacted]

and your posts are becoming like [a surat]...always finding a different reason to be upset. Seriously, if there is ZERO QA for stuff being released, why do I want MORE crappy lazy new stuff.

Whatever. Time to just tune you out. All you do is complain anymore.

You either need to re-read your own siggy or remove it. Just sayin.

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 08 July 2015 - 10:07 AM.
Unconstructive and unconstructive in quote

[Tiamat of the Sea]

I'm really confused why, in these multiple-hardpoint locations, there has to be a blank slot for each hardpoint visually, even if there's nothing in it. A great example is the new Awesome right arm- if you mount one weapon in it, you have a blank space in the bottom 'slot'. Is it actually difficult to set the program so that a single weapon in that component will occupy the center of the arm, and having two weapons will shift that weapon up to the 'upper' point and slot the second weapon in under it? I have no idea, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable way to do things.

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 July 2015 - 01:37 PM, said:

source, out of curiosity? Sometimes my web fu fails.

Fluff in the TROs.

The only one I could find on sarna for the ac5, the gm whirlwind ac5. 120mm 3 rnd burst. The defiance I've seen before, if memory serves it was either the Steiner source book or one of the campaign books about Hansen's Roughriders about Defiance industries. Don't have the books now.

Edited by MischiefSC, 07 July 2015 - 02:05 PM.

[Escef]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 July 2015 - 10:46 AM, said:

and yet, I got Russ looking into resizing the PPCs on the K2, and now the AWS.

So, they DON'T listen to you and you don't have much pull, and then you say this? M'thinks you're downplaying your influence.

[Deathlike]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 07 July 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

I'm really confused why, in these multiple-hardpoint locations, there has to be a blank slot for each hardpoint visually, even if there's nothing in it. A great example is the new Awesome right arm- if you mount one weapon in it, you have a blank space in the bottom 'slot'. Is it actually difficult to set the program so that a single weapon in that component will occupy the center of the arm, and having two weapons will shift that weapon up to the 'upper' point and slot the second weapon in under it? I have no idea, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable way to do things.

It's either a visual indicator for people that weren't aware of its position... or... I don't have a good reason (other than PGI to keep track of what's there and what's not).

It detracts from the mech's visuals generally, while occasionally keeping the hitboxes larger than necessary (if it were just one weapon there, there shouldn't be "extra stuff").

Edited by Deathlike, 07 July 2015 - 01:57 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Escef, on 07 July 2015 - 01:56 PM, said:

So, they DON'T listen to you and you don't have much pull, and then you say this? M'thinks you're downplaying your influence.

woo hoo!! Russ listened on 2 thing, one after over a year of pestering, and posts by literally dozens of forumites. My God, I should be the next CEO of PGI at this rate!