53 replies to this topic

[MechB Kotare]

Im personally not satisfied with the legs and placements of secondary missile torsos placement. Other than that, im fine with overall look of the timberwolf.

[Volthorne]

MoonUnitBeta, on 28 February 2016 - 01:24 PM, said:

structure /armor quirks

Are you actually suggesting giving structure/armor quirks to an already god-tier robit? More importantly, would the "upgraded" visuals be worth the controversy of said quirks/hitboxes/other assorted nonsense? Do you *really* want to go there?

[Metus regem]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 27 February 2016 - 08:38 PM, said:

my only complaints with it, is that if you remove missiles, it completely removes the missile pods. which destroy's the iconic look.

I can understand the complaint over the "Additional launchers" but it still keeps the basic shape of the Timberwolf.

At the end of the day, a lot of the "old style" art, is going away, PGI's redesigns, are the new gold standard that even Classic Battletech is moving towards.

I couldn't agree more, and admittedly, it took a little while for the MWO art style to grow on me, but now this is one of my favorite renditions of the franchise.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Volthorne, on 28 February 2016 - 02:24 PM, said:

Are you actually suggesting giving structure/armor quirks to an already god-tier robit?

... Okay, are you even listening to yourself?

"If you increase hit box sizes, you'll be giving the mech catapult awfulness!"
and then,
"how dare you even suggest something to offset the atrocity that i had just tried to explain! i mean really."
The only "CONTROVERSY" you're talking about is the one you're making up in your head because you refuse to actually come to the agreement that you're blowing things way out of proportion.

[Bishop Steiner]

Hillslam, on 27 February 2016 - 07:26 PM, said:

I agree they got the height vs width ratio bad on the Timber.

But its not remotely the most serious visual offender - the sheer ****** of the Jager, Catapult, Victor, Centurion, and others thanks to "weapons pass" far outsuck the ugly inflicted on the Madcat.

(also I would argue the madcat wasn't the most iconic mech of battletech by a long shot - maybe for the younger crowd who came in halfway thru)

Probably the same kids who think anything spider-man HAS to have venom.

Or think wolverine is the most interesting and important character in the Marvel comic universe.

[Navid A1]

ILikePeaches, on 28 February 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

Wait a minute, how can you call someone salty who isn't complaining while you are the ones with very goofy, nitpicky complaints? Salty much?

Someone who isn't complaining?
Here read again... I'll highlight the complains:

Fade Akira, on 28 February 2016 - 08:22 AM, said:

This.

In all honesty, i also find this entire thread astoundingly boring.

I mean come on. People discussing how a made up robot in a video game, doesn't look like another made up robot from a tired old board game? They are not even major points. In fact, those "proposed" LRM launchers look absolutely terrible.

Couldn't think of anything more pointless. Especially when there are other things that the developers could be getting on with like progressing the actual game and trying to improve it tangibly.

Instead, some people think its reasonable to make whole threads about what the LRM launchers look like, or whether arms are square or cyclindrical. When it makes no difference, and only hardcore BattleTech nutjobs would even notice.

My opinion of course.

Meanwhile, all we did was giving a few suggestions PGI may or may not listen to.



And notice this: Half of the store items such as colors, camo patterns, or cockpit items are for pure aesthetic purposes.
Well I hate those goofy cockpit items or those corny "warhorns"... but still these are the things you are paying real money for.

[Volthorne]

MoonUnitBeta, on 28 February 2016 - 02:32 PM, said:

The only "CONTROVERSY" you're talking about is the one you're making up in your head because you refuse to actually come to the agreement that you're blowing things way out of proportion.

Yes, *I* am blowing things *WAY* out of proportion. Let's look at the facts:

1) You lot are screaming about how PGI cocked up the TBR
2) A bunch of you specifically whine about how the back is "too flat"
3) I point out that making it "not flat" gives it bigger hitboxes, and there are two ways those extended hitboxes end up getting assigned damage locations
4) I state exactly HOW those hitboxes are going to change the way the TBR takes damage, based off of previous experience of a similar situation with a different robit
5) You suggest quirks to REMOVE the incurred penalties for the visual "upgrade" that also end up making the TBR even better overall than it is currently, which will absolutely cause a shitstorm
6) I point out the above problem, said shitstorm, and that you obviously didn't consider the ramifications
7) You accuse me of "blowing things out of proportion" and some other nonsense thrown in for good measure
8) This post

Either you keep the TBR with it's current hitboxes and visuals, OR you "upgrade" it visually and eat the new hitboxes with no quirks or ketchup. Take your pick.

Edited by Volthorne, 28 February 2016 - 03:43 PM.

[Navid A1]

The timber absolutely does NOT need any structure quirks.

All the changes to hitboxes resulted from changing the back or missile boxes will affect its survivabiity in a negative way.... which is a good thing.
So why there would be a shitstorm when you are nerfing a long time OP mech?

For example, in case of the missile boxes, equipping the superior weapons also gives you the superior hitboxes currently... it is unacceptable... You are being rewarded for ruining the classic look.

You don't see catapults losing their missile boxes depending on missile choice... You ask why?... Because it ruins everything that makes it a catapult if you take those boxes away, thats why.

[Volthorne]

Navid A1, on 28 February 2016 - 03:52 PM, said:

The timber absolutely does NOT need any structure quirks.

Of course not.

Quote

All the changes to hitboxes resulted from changing the back or missile boxes will affect its survivabiity in a negative way.... which is a good thing.

Still with you.

Quote

So why there would be a shitstorm when you are nerfing a long time OP mech?

Because Clam crybabies. I can guarantee that they absolutely will cry over their TBRs being more fragile and demand structure/armor quirks to compensate.

Quote

For example, in case of the missile boxes, equipping the superior weapons also gives you the superior hitboxes currently... it is unacceptable... You are being rewarded for ruining the classic look.

That's a dynamic weapons problem, not a hitbox problem, and I don't agree with how PGI handled the TBR in particular.

Quote

You don't see catapults losing their missile boxes depending on missile choice... You ask why?... Because it ruins everything that makes it a catapult if you take those boxes away, thats why.

You don't see Catapult players NOT utilizing those missile hardpoints in some fashion, because the Catapults are so hardpoint starved. You also don't see people crying about PGI screwing up the Catapult's aesthetic (other than being too big. And the VCR's), though now that it has been confirmed that the Catapult is getting a new model, you do see plenty of people calling it "ugly" (I disagree, but that's a different topic - I also suspect the new model isn't going to be much different from the current one).

[MeiSooHaityu]

Although all suggestions are good ones, I feel the arm changes would make the most striking impact.

I also like the additional launcher idea as well.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Navid A1, on 28 February 2016 - 03:52 PM, said:

You don't see catapults losing their missile boxes depending on missile choice... You ask why?... Because it ruins everything that makes it a catapult if you take those boxes away, thats why.

Catapults missile "boxes" are it's arms, where as the Timber Wolf missile "boxes" are part of the torso.

If I remove all the weapons in a mech's arm, the weapons go away but the arm itself stays. So, removing all the missile harpoints in a Catapult means the missile boxes (it's actual physical arms) have to stay and the missiles itself are removed. For the Timber Wolf, you are removing the missiles, and the side torso stays.

I suppose you could make an argument that the Timber Wolf's boxes should stay (but hollow or plated off), however you do notice that when the missiles are removed, there appears to be a metal cap over the launcher feed on a Timber Wolf's shoulder (creating a quasi shoulder pad). This does make a lot of sense to me.

Maybe when they re-do the Catapult, they could make it so the horizontal pillar the missile boxes sit on are actually the arm and the missile box is the installed weapon. This way If I removed missiles all together, the pillars or beams stay, but the boxes themselves are gone. I could see that as a nice addition seeing as the model is seeing a big redesign anyway.

Basically, imagine this minus the missile launcher...



Just the beams hanging out.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 29 February 2016 - 07:39 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Mister D, on 28 February 2016 - 12:23 AM, said:

All the missle racks need to be redone completely, for both LRM and SRM.

Especially for the secondary lower torso racks, they're the ugliest part of the Timber.

Something that wraps around the shape of the Torso would be better suited, take those Fugly boxes away.
Same for the Battlemaster missle racks, they're horrible.

just think o those additional rags as floppy ears because lone mama timber had a little passionate night with a labrador

[Y E O N N E]

MeiSooHaityu, on 29 February 2016 - 07:36 AM, said:

Catapults missile "boxes" are it's arms, where as the Timber Wolf missile "boxes" are part of the torso.

If I remove all the weapons in a mech's arm, the weapons go away but the arm itself stays. So, removing all the missile harpoints in a Catapult means the missile boxes (it's actual physical arms) have to stay and the missiles itself are removed. For the Timber Wolf, you are removing the missiles, and the side torso stays.

I suppose you could make an argument that the Timber Wolf's boxes should stay (but hollow or plated off), however you do notice that when the missiles are removed, there appears to be a metal cap over the launcher feed on a Timber Wolf's shoulder (creating a quasi shoulder pad). This does make a lot of sense to me.

Maybe when they re-do the Catapult, they could make it so the horizontal pillar the missile boxes sit on are actually the arm and the missile box is the installed weapon. This way If I removed missiles all together, the pillars or beams stay, but the boxes themselves are gone. I could see that as a nice addition seeing as the model is seeing a big redesign anyway.

Basically, imagine this minus the missile launcher...



Just the beams hanging out.

Is...is that a Catapult with 20x MG?

When can I get this in-game and how much do you want, PGI?

[MeiSooHaityu]

Lol, I thought those were SRM racks on the Catapult. Yeah, those are MGs lol. Crazy.