82 replies to this topic

[InspectorG]

Is it official???

Are Commandos the new Locust???

[Deathlike]

InspectorG, on 07 July 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

Is it official???

Are Commandos the new Locust???

Actually, our Lolcust overlords are better than the previous Commando overlords for a while now (mostly due to quirks).

It took a while to be realized.

[stjobe]

InspectorG, on 07 July 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

Is it official???

Are Commandos the new Locust???

The Locust was only the new Locust until the Quirkening, before and after that it was always the Commando.

That's part of why I love the little fellas, nobody expects them to rack up 600 damage and 3-4 kills

[CtrlAltWheee]

stjobe, on 07 July 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

This one?



I guess it's the camo that makes it look bad-ass.

It has a single energy hardpoint in each arm (with MLs in, yet it could be both SL or LL for all it shows), yet both arms have dual-hardpoint Boxes of Shame, the SRM-4 on the right arm is a LRM-5 with one plugged tube, and the SRM-6 in the chest looks like it's ... I don't even know. It looks like a stick-on, totally devoid of any actual depth into the torso. It's also misaligned, the top tubes are half out of the "plate" it's mounted on.

Harsh but true.

[DONTOR]

Meh I like the SRM4 in the right arm, I'd rather its mounted above, than on the side. CT launcher does kinda look tacked on but I still think it could be worse.

What does an LRM10 look like in the CT?

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Just what the Commando needed, bigger hitboxes. Hooray for stealth nerfs!

COM needs some love. Everybody give it a hug.

[stjobe]

DONTOR, on 07 July 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

Meh I like the SRM4 in the right arm, I'd rather its mounted above, than on the side.

Oh, on the 2D (2 missile hardpoints in RA) you get one on top, spilling over the side:



I think I would mind less if it was an actual SRM-2 geo and not just a LRM-5 one with three tubes blocked.

DONTOR, on 07 July 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

What does an LRM10 look like in the CT?

Atrocious:



Edit: Hell, now that I'm looking into the LRM launchers - goddammit. More pics to follow.

Edited by stjobe, 07 July 2015 - 03:15 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Commando is just entirely to damn tiny to begin with. So, yeah, slapping mech grade weaponry on something the size of an elemental battle suit...yeah, its going to look odd.

[Sereglach]

The more I look at these the more it just . . . hurts. I logged in for a few minutes to look at the Commandos and then logged off. I literally couldn't bear to look at them any more. There was so much potential to do amazing things with this mech. The geometry was already there in game!

The Panther has the right CT missile profile to use. All you'd have to do is start with the upper Panther hardpoint, first, then plug in the lower one if a second hardpoint was used on the Commando (or if an LRM/10 was mounted).

The Kintaro already has the exact same kind of missile boxes the Commando needed, and they would have looked right when put onto the mech. They're also pretty small until you get into the obscenely huge missile pods. At which point you could have just put a tube limit on the Commando to make sure it only uses the SRM/6 or LMR/10 boxes.

It was right there, PGI! All you had to do was not be lazy and use the right weapon art!


PGI took some huge steps to ensure that I don't invest in the Origins pack any time soon. I couldn't even stay in the game long enough to see if the other patch fixes were as awesome as they look. I didn't even go into the testing grounds for the new River City, I was so disappointed.

Edited by Sereglach, 07 July 2015 - 03:21 PM.

[InspectorG]

Stefka Kerensky, on 07 July 2015 - 12:40 PM, said:

There is was nothing like rolling a commando.

I'm sad.

nuff said.

+07/07/2015+

#neverforget

[stjobe]

Ookay, brace yourself, it's picture time.

Viewer discretion advised - images may be disturbing to some viewers.

Single SRM-2:


Single SRM-4:


Single SRM-6:


Not too bad so far, right?

SRM-2 + SRM-2:


SRM-2 + SRM-4:


SRM-2 + SRM-6:


What? Four plugged tubes? WTH, PGI?

Now, the LRMs:

Single LRM-5:


Single LRM-10:


LRM-5 + LRM-10:


LRM10+LRM10:


Oh yeah, that looks bad-ass - NOT! It looks fscking ridiculous.

Yeah, The glory of "dynamic geometry" when done in the laziest way imaginable.

[Gryphorim]

I guess I must be different. I don't mind the arm weapon pods. The chest missile mount, however... It looks like absolute trash, the way it is tacked over the trapezoidal missile mounting is just ugly. Why couldn't they just make a trapezoidal missile mount with 10 tubes and just blank out unused tubes?

[Nightshade24]

stjobe, on 07 July 2015 - 03:36 PM, said:

-snip-

personally the singular missiles look alright and the 2 + 4 is alright... the 2 x LRM 10 reminds me vaguely of a zeus and I think it's decent-ish but most other missile comboes doesn't tickle my fancy and I think the 2nd SRM 6 should look a tad different.


bad ass? not that much... but it's a commando, that thing isn't known for being bad ass in bt that much... it's just a very good scout mech- the scout mech all mechs wanted to be.

The commando puts the Locust to shame (stock/ lore/ tt wise).

However we should kinda have known that having 2 x SRM 6 in an arm or more would probably cause unwanted size....



Commando is a rock in a hard place =l

[Sereglach]

Nightshade24, on 07 July 2015 - 04:05 PM, said:

However we should kinda have known that having 2 x SRM 6 in an arm or more would probably cause unwanted size....

But it didn't need to be that way. We had everything we needed to make excellent arm hardpoints for the Commando right here, on a mech that already has full Weapon Visualizations:


Look at those hardpoint boxes. They're actually quite small, for SRM/6 and LRM/5. In fact the SRM/6 looks like it was taken off the old COM-3A model. They don't get much bigger until you mount LRM/15's. However, you could have just left them at a 10 tube limit and they'd have been great for the Commando.

As for the energy hardpoints, they could have done what they did for the Atlas, and other mechs, and kept the single energy box and only swapped for the bigger box when you put on more than one weapon.


This was just lazy on PGI's part. Terrible, shoddy, and lazy.

[Nightshade24]

Sereglach, on 07 July 2015 - 04:28 PM, said:

But it didn't need to be that way. We had everything we needed to make excellent arm hardpoints for the Commando right here, on a mech that already has full Weapon Visualizations:


Look at those hardpoint boxes. They're actually quite small, for SRM/6 and LRM/5. In fact the SRM/6 looks like it was taken off the old COM-3A model. They don't get much bigger until you mount LRM/15's. However, you could have just left them at a 10 tube limit and they'd have been great for the Commando.

As for the energy hardpoints, they could have done what they did for the Atlas, and other mechs, and kept the single energy box and only swapped for the bigger box when you put on more than one weapon.


This was just lazy on PGI's part. Terrible, shoddy, and lazy.

personally the Kintaros extremely tiny hardpoints was the only reason I avoided using that mech.... and this is also why I avoid using LRM 5's or SRM's on stormcrows to... it's so tiny it's stupid.....

Edit: first time since the dragon they finally put split missile weapons on mechs, used new models and also did better work then 70% of other mechs in terms of visuals instead of copy pasting parts from the kintaro is considered lazy? care to explain? because this looks funny from my perspective...

Edited by Nightshade24, 07 July 2015 - 04:39 PM.

[Sereglach]

Nightshade24, on 07 July 2015 - 04:37 PM, said:

personally the Kintaros extremely tiny hardpoints was the only reason I avoided using that mech.... and this is also why I avoid using LRM 5's or SRM's on stormcrows to... it's so tiny it's stupid.....

Edit: first time since the dragon they finally put split missile weapons on mechs, used new models and also did better work then 70% of other mechs in terms of visuals instead of copy pasting parts from the kintaro is considered lazy? care to explain? because this looks funny from my perspective...

1. The "new models" are just ripped off tubes from things like the Zeus "missile bracelets". There's nothing new about them. If you even look at the way the tubes mesh and contour you can see the actual copy and paste work from those mech models . . . and it's crappy copy and paste work, at that.

It doesn't even mesh with the model of the mech. It's just slapped on there. I wouldn't be so disappointed if they actually looked like they were part of the mech and not really shoddy slap-on cop-outs.

2. I have nothing wrong with using modularity of parts across various platforms to make Weapon Visualizations work. However, there's a difference between half-arsing something from your cookie cutter work, and using parts you already have that actually fit the model and setup.

Apparently it was just easier and simpler to use some tube-plugging mechanic, for terribly modeled generic honeycomb missile tubes, then using actual hardpoint mounts that looked unique and fit the mech, but would require work to bring over from one functional mech into another.

3. Have you looked at the split missiles on the Dragon? They look like CRAP! A SRM/6 puts 5 tubes on one side and 1 on the other?!? That makes no sense artistically, logically, or physically. Also, it's a terribly wasted opportunity to fix the snout of the Dragon, which would have fixed a lot of its issues. Instead they went with tacking missile boxes onto the edge of the snout . . . that don't even sit flush, or even, or make sense in placement.

4. They didn't even consider doing what they did for the Atlas. That actually has good looking Weapon Visualizations, but it uses assets that were already a part of the original mech. Had they done that with these mechs, there wouldn't be complaints of tiny PPC nipples and terribly modeled "missile bracelets".

5. If you hadn't noticed, all the mechs got the same kinds of missile tubes with the same generic modeling. They might not look so bad when mounted flush on a large, flat surface like the Awesome torso-plate, but they look utterly hideous when vaguely mounted onto the outside of a Commando arm (or the tiny torso section), with structure that doesn't even look like it's part of the mech.

[Nightshade24]

Sereglach, on 07 July 2015 - 05:08 PM, said:

1. The "new models" are just ripped off tubes from things like the Zeus "missile bracelets". There's nothing new about them. If you even look at the way the tubes mesh and contour you can see the actual copy and paste work from those mech models . . . and it's crappy copy and paste work, at that.

It doesn't even mesh with the model of the mech. It's just slapped on there. I wouldn't be so disappointed if they actually looked like they were part of the mech and not really shoddy slap-on cop-outs.

2. I have nothing wrong with using modularity of parts across various platforms to make Weapon Visualizations work. However, there's a difference between half-arsing something from your cookie cutter work, and using parts you already have that actually fit the model and setup.

Apparently it was just easier and simpler to use some tube-plugging mechanic, for terribly modeled generic honeycomb missile tubes, then using actual hardpoint mounts that looked unique and fit the mech, but would require work to bring over from one functional mech into another.

3. Have you looked at the split missiles on the Dragon? They look like CRAP! A SRM/6 puts 5 tubes on one side and 1 on the other?!? That makes no sense artistically, logically, or physically. Also, it's a terribly wasted opportunity to fix the snout of the Dragon, which would have fixed a lot of its issues. Instead they went with tacking missile boxes onto the edge of the snout . . . that don't even sit flush, or even, or make sense in placement.

4. They didn't even consider doing what they did for the Atlas. That actually has good looking Weapon Visualizations, but it uses assets that were already a part of the original mech. Had they done that with these mechs, there wouldn't be complaints of tiny PPC nipples and terribly modeled "missile bracelets".

5. If you hadn't noticed, all the mechs got the same kinds of missile tubes with the same generic modeling. They might not look so bad when mounted flush on a large, flat surface like the Awesome torso-plate, but they look utterly hideous when vaguely mounted onto the outside of a Commando arm (or the tiny torso section), with structure that doesn't even look like it's part of the mech.

1. I'm looking again and again over the commandos missiles and it does not look like a copy paste from the zeus...

2. N/A

3. artistically? well I can see the appeal of the asymmetric missiles. Especially on a heavily asymmetric mech like the dragon.
Ofc I would find it much better if PGI allows minor details of variable geometry to be chosen by the player... for eg which tubes are blocked/ not blocked. (in this case for tragon, you can arrange them how ever you want rather it be 5/1, 4/2, 3/3, 2/4, 1/5. Or what ever... another example is the direwolf arm... 4E hardpoints on the arm omnipods for prime and B and such, you can choose where your weapons will be. for eg PPC on first row left and bottom row right or what ever combo you want. etc...

Think this could solve a lot of problems...

4. what exactly did they do with the atlas that made it special?

5. not precisely? I'm pretty sure highlander has different ones?

[Gattsus]

Damien Tokala, on 07 July 2015 - 12:04 PM, said:

Real pilots don't use commandos

Real pilots master commandos with k/d ratio > 2, but hey..... I also like the new geometries...

[Bishop Steiner]

Damien Tokala, on 07 July 2015 - 12:04 PM, said:

Real pilots don't use commandos

real pilots can succeed in anything. and don't need meta cheese to do it.

[Sereglach]

Nightshade24, on 07 July 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:

1. I'm looking again and again over the commandos missiles and it does not look like a copy paste from the zeus...

2. N/A

3. artistically? well I can see the appeal of the asymmetric missiles. Especially on a heavily asymmetric mech like the dragon.
Ofc I would find it much better if PGI allows minor details of variable geometry to be chosen by the player... for eg which tubes are blocked/ not blocked. (in this case for tragon, you can arrange them how ever you want rather it be 5/1, 4/2, 3/3, 2/4, 1/5. Or what ever... another example is the direwolf arm... 4E hardpoints on the arm omnipods for prime and B and such, you can choose where your weapons will be. for eg PPC on first row left and bottom row right or what ever combo you want. etc...

Think this could solve a lot of problems...

4. what exactly did they do with the atlas that made it special?

5. not precisely? I'm pretty sure highlander has different ones?

1. Then keep looking. Look at the way the generic honey-comb missiles are tacked together. It's pretty apparent when you actually look at the rendering of the missile tubes themselves. They even use the same "notches" for clicking sections of missile tubes together. Just because these mechs get them in a square-like honeycomb and the Zeus gets them in a ring doesn't make them different missile renders.


2. It is applicable. You say I'm complaining and calling them lazy for not copying the Kintaro mounts over to the Commando. I'm saying that what IS lazy is using generic mounts for all of these visualizations in this patch, and using them in very shoddy fashion. They should have actually went in and looked at what should go where, and what different weapon mounts they could use for each mech, for the purposes of making higher quality mechs.

3. That might solve problems, but at the same token their usage on the Dragon is as bad as the VCR decks on the Catapult. Why would you put 5 tubes on one side of the snout and one on the other? How would the loader even work for that? It doesn't even make physical logistic sense.

Also, if you go off of the original Dragon concept arts (and TRO designs), then all the missile tubes were mounted in the center of the snout. So in reality they could have used upper and lower "blocks" akin to what is on the Centurion torso, and done a much better job with the Dragon, just for that. If they wanted to do split missiles, they could have at least set them up to make sense, and also done upper and lower missile mounts. 2xSRM/4s with two tubes on each side of the snout wouldn't have looked that bad.

4. The Atlas actually used its original artwork for the premise of making its hardpoint mounts. If you actually look at what the Atlas gets for its missile pods, ballistics, and energy weapons, you'll notice that they all derive the art from the original model, and adjust from there. For the later "visualizations", they didn't even do that; and for this run, they used terribly rendered cookie cutter mounts that don't even match up with the mechs in a lot of ways (especially the poor Commando).

5. I'm talking about this weapons visualization "upgrade", and all of the mechs it applies to. You're talking about a mech made over two years ago, now. Also, funny enough, if you look at the hardpoints on the Highlander, they're done in a fashion that matches more with the Kintaro then it does with the Zeus or newly butchered Commando. That SRM/6 on the Highlander arm is almost the same size as the pod on the Kintaro (it's got a little more armor around the outside and a little more space around the tubes). The large block of missile tubes on the torso matches up more with what a large-tube torso mount on the Kintaro looks like, or on the Trebuchet.