75 replies to this topic

[Spheroid]

@FupDup: I believe the Mist Lynx was done in that manner so that either box could fix a PPC model. No mech yet modeled has two different hardpoints for energy weapons.

Edited by Spheroid, 24 September 2016 - 09:10 AM.

[FupDup]

Spheroid, on 24 September 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

@FupDup: I believe the Mist Lynx was done in that manner so that either box could fix a PPC model. No mech yet modeled has two different hardpoints for energy weapons.

The PPC barrel should logically go in place of the hand actuator, because mounting the PPC makes you remove the hand.

Heck, depending on the exact model of their choice, they could even have the whole forearm get replaced by the PPC (for a biggish model).

Edited by FupDup, 24 September 2016 - 09:18 AM.

[Requiemking]

FupDup, on 24 September 2016 - 09:13 AM, said:

The PPC barrel should logically go in place of the hand actuator, because mounting the PPC makes you remove the hand.

Heck, depending on the exact model of their choice, they could even have the whole forearm get replaced by the PPC (for a biggish model).

Instead, what we get is an ugly box and a couple of pieces of metal covering where the wrist should go. It also happens with the MLX-D's AC.

Edited by Requiemking, 24 September 2016 - 09:39 AM.

[Idealsuspect]

FupDup, on 24 September 2016 - 09:00 AM, said:

LosTech™.

Well i am ok for new design but after this thing have to be NERFED

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 24 September 2016 - 09:00 AM, said:

LosTech™.

I still think your change looks stupid. I bought the 'Mech for the way it currently looks. Change it, and there's no reason for me to keep it.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 September 2016 - 10:26 AM, said:

I still think your change looks stupid. I bought the 'Mech for the way it currently looks. Change it, and there's no reason for me to keep it.

Well, do you have any suggestions of your own for reducing the size of the mech's arm hitboxes that would "look better" in your opinion?

The other alternative is quirking the hell out of it, which many forumites don't like.

Either fix the mech's largest weakness directly or cover it up in quirks; it's gotta be one or the other since it's such a horrible robbit right now.


Besides that, IMO I think that large expanses of open and unused space look stupid.

Edited by FupDup, 24 September 2016 - 10:37 AM.

[Requiemking]

FupDup, on 24 September 2016 - 10:32 AM, said:

Well, do you have any suggestions of your own for reducing the size of the mech's arm hitboxes that would "look better" in your opinion?

The other alternative is quirking the hell out of it, which many forumites don't like.

Either fix the mech's largest weakness directly or cover it up in quirks; it's gotta be one or the other since it's such a horrible robbit right now.


Besides that, IMO I think that large expanses of open and unused space look stupid.

The source of many mech's woes come down to how Omnimechs work. Hardlocked equipment is how Omnimechs are punished for being able to swap hardpoints. That said, some Omnis aren't really affected by this, such as the Timby. Others, however, are quite badly affect by Hardlocked equipment. Those being the Mist Lynx, the Summoner, and the Gargoyle.

[Bishop Steiner]

Juodas Varnas, on 24 September 2016 - 04:03 AM, said:

Greetings everyone!

As you probably know, PGI has been retro-actively implementing full camo support for many of the mechs (they seem to be going from oldest to newest, so the next mechs to get such a treatment are presumably the rest of the miscellaneous mechs like the Kintaro, Quickdraw, Jagermech and Orion, followed by the Phoenix pack mechs, which then again will be followed by the first Invasion mechs) and it's highly appreciated. The camo patterns look well done and are as high quality as the newest mechs (i believe we should thank Lauren for that!).
However, i do think that the high quality of these camo retrofits (and the, in my opinion, reasonably well done Weapon Geometries for the newer mechs) makes the previous Dynamic Weapon Geometry passes for the old mechs rather painfully awful looking. I don't want to offend or insult the person behind them, but they look REALLY bad. From the horrible unpainted metal slabs with pathetic looking barrels like the Centurion or the Dragon to the dreadfully convoluted MESS of plugged holes and empty boxes of the Commando.

Basically, i'd like to know, if there are any plans of doing secondary geometry passes for the mechs with exceptionally offensive hack-jobs and also create a discussion of sorts. I'd like to know more about other peoples' thoughts about the worst examples of Dynamic geometry and possibly share ideas on how to improve on them.

Anyway, i'll just start off with the Dragon and its CT mounted SRM-6 and 2xSRM-4s

How to fix it? SIMPLE. Just ditch the idea of splitting the launchers and go for a more traditional missile port pattern. Since it's CT mounted (so it'd have a maximum of 10 tubes) and has a maximum of 2 hardpoints, it wouldn't be hard to do the more traditional look of just having the tubes in the center.


So anyway, what do you guys think? What mechs would need a second go-over for their weapon geometry the most? How would YOU do it?
Who knows? Maybe PGI will even consider doing it, instead of leaving those mechs a mangled messes of horrible.

any mech that has PPCs or ACs that look like they mass about 1 ton, or are the size of their medium lasers.

In fact, can we just regulate weapon size, period? A ppc is a ppc is a ppc, with no more than say 10% size variation whether it's on a Locust or a Banshee. Right now, the Hollander would look like it had a cigar in place of the "half it's bloody mass" Gauss rifle,

A 25 ton mech should look like a ridiculous gundam when it has a gun that makes up 1/3 its mass (like a TDK with a PPC).

[RedDragon]

StaggerCheck, on 24 September 2016 - 08:55 AM, said:

These are examples of just getting it done, in my opinion, rather than really striving for the best possible outcome.

Congrats, you did sucessfully summarize PGI's work philosophy in one sentence. A.k.a. "minimally viable product".
(Although even "getting it done" is a bold statement in regards to many things in MWO ...)

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 24 September 2016 - 10:32 AM, said:

Well, do you have any suggestions of your own for reducing the size of the mech's arm hitboxes that would "look better" in your opinion?

The other alternative is quirking the hell out of it, which many forumites don't like.

Either fix the mech's largest weakness directly or cover it up in quirks; it's gotta be one or the other since it's such a horrible robbit right now.


Besides that, IMO I think that large expanses of open and unused space look stupid.

I don't, and I don't need one because trying to argue a technical point against an emotional one can only lead to a 22-page thread that invariably gets locked.

Personally, though, I'd much rather they cover it with quirks. The MLX is supposed to have big beefy arms, so changing the geo like that to give it toothpick arms is just wrong. Also, they will still be stripped off in a blink due to how they bend, so you still need the quirks. Ergo, just go all-in on the quirks. It's easier.

[badaa]

Juodas Varnas, on 24 September 2016 - 04:03 AM, said:

Greetings everyone!

As you probably know, PGI has been retro-actively implementing full camo support for many of the mechs (they seem to be going from oldest to newest, so the next mechs to get such a treatment are presumably the rest of the miscellaneous mechs like the Kintaro, Quickdraw, Jagermech and Orion, followed by the Phoenix pack mechs, which then again will be followed by the first Invasion mechs) and it's highly appreciated. The camo patterns look well done and are as high quality as the newest mechs (i believe we should thank Lauren for that!).
However, i do think that the high quality of these camo retrofits (and the, in my opinion, reasonably well done Weapon Geometries for the newer mechs) makes the previous Dynamic Weapon Geometry passes for the old mechs rather painfully awful looking. I don't want to offend or insult the person behind them, but they look REALLY bad. From the horrible unpainted metal slabs with pathetic looking barrels like the Centurion or the Dragon to the dreadfully convoluted MESS of plugged holes and empty boxes of the Commando.

Basically, i'd like to know, if there are any plans of doing secondary geometry passes for the mechs with exceptionally offensive hack-jobs and also create a discussion of sorts. I'd like to know more about other peoples' thoughts about the worst examples of Dynamic geometry and possibly share ideas on how to improve on them.

Anyway, i'll just start off with the Dragon and its CT mounted SRM-6 and 2xSRM-4s

How to fix it? SIMPLE. Just ditch the idea of splitting the launchers and go for a more traditional missile port pattern. Since it's CT mounted (so it'd have a maximum of 10 tubes) and has a maximum of 2 hardpoints, it wouldn't be hard to do the more traditional look of just having the tubes in the center.


So anyway, what do you guys think? What mechs would need a second go-over for their weapon geometry the most? How would YOU do it?
Who knows? Maybe PGI will even consider doing it, instead of leaving those mechs a mangled messes of horrible.

if u think this is bad check out the quickdraw , banshee ,centurion and a few other for the life of me i cant remember.

[Lola Kabrinski]

Its funny, I was just skimming through this thread then I looked at one of my Mad Dogs and nearly spewed my coffee.

WTF is this ? 3xLRM-5 in each ST. Phantom LRM-5's on the CT where there is a clear blank space on the ST. Sigh. Did they even try or test to see how this would turn out before integrating it live?

Edited by Lola Kabrinski, 24 September 2016 - 05:22 PM.

[Requiemking]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 September 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

I don't, and I don't need one because trying to argue a technical point against an emotional one can only lead to a 22-page thread that invariably gets locked.

Personally, though, I'd much rather they cover it with quirks. The MLX is supposed to have big beefy arms, so changing the geo like that to give it toothpick arms is just wrong. Also, they will still be stripped off in a blink due to how they bend, so you still need the quirks. Ergo, just go all-in on the quirks. It's easier.

Except, just quirking things to make up for a easily correctable weakness is not the way to go. The MLX, even without weapons in them, still has massive ogre arms. The weapons boxes, especially in the left arm, make it stupidly easy to rip them off, and once their gone, there goes all your firepower. Torso twisting isn't an option because if you do, you lose that firepower even faster than normal. Hence, I don't think moving the weapon boxes around and resizing them is going to damage the MLX's aesthetics that much.

Edited by Requiemking, 24 September 2016 - 04:34 PM.

[Lola Kabrinski]

Updated. Here is the same stock Mad Dog A, 3x cSRM-6 on one side, 3x cLRM-5 on the other.



I mean really? How is this "dynamic"? It seems pretty lazy to me.

Edited by Lola Kabrinski, 24 September 2016 - 04:50 PM.

[LordNothing]

i think the system could be much better if they just improve the base weapon models.

lasers, pulse, and er should all have a distinct look.

clan weapons should use different models from is weapons.

ppc, erppc, and cerppc should have a distinct look.

represent laser size correctly, like you do with autocannons.

on omnipods that cant support hand actuators (looking at you exe), dont put a flat plate where the hand should have gone, instead put the weapons there. the ones that do support actuators, might be arranged differently when the actuator is installed. i also think the hand actuators need a purpose beyond being a decorative item.

do away with fridge magnet missile launchers, do like what was done on the catapult. put in enough holes for everything that can be mounted and then plug the ones you dont use.

i actually dont mind the salvoed missile launch like is used on some of the older mechs without a lot of holes and a big launcher, especially mechs with a single launcher slot. so long as the spread is representative of the max salvo size (for example putting an lrm20 on a tbr results in 2 salvos of 10, those salvos should have the spread of an lrm10), kind of an intrinsic spread quirk. this would make those big launchers more useful on mixed builds.

remove missile doors when srms or narcs are used. seriously. those weapons are hard enough to lead when they fire instantly.

[Lostdragon]

I hate the dynamic geometry. It all looks terrible. There were some mechs that looked great before it that now look anemic. Some of the newer ones designed with it in mind aren't as bad, but none of them look as good as they could if the weapon models were better and not placed so stupidly in many cases.

[TELEFORCE]

I think that the Dragon and the Phoenix Hawk are the worst offenders of weapon geometry since they both go against the source material that has depicted them a certain way for over 20 years.

The Timber Wolf I feel is second worse since the missile tubes are all supposed to go in the shoulder-mounted missile racks and not off the sides of its torsos.

Third I feel is the Warhawk. I never liked how the missile racks were underslung on the arm in MWO. They're supposed to be mounted in the shoulder like the Arctic Cheetah.

[Requiemking]

TELEFORCE, on 24 September 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

I think that the Dragon and the Phoenix Hawk are the worst offenders of weapon geometry since they both go against the source material that has depicted them a certain way for over 20 years.

The Timber Wolf I feel is second worse since the missile tubes are all supposed to go in the shoulder-mounted missile racks and not off the sides of its torsos.

Third I feel is the Warhawk. I never liked how the missile racks were underslung on the arm in MWO. They're supposed to be mounted in the shoulder like the Arctic Cheetah.

Well, The Dragon's worst part is the Missile tubes in the CT. Looking at how the gun arm is built, I'd say they were basing it on the Grand Dragon rather than the normal Dragon. This would be fine, if they'd give us the Grand Dragon. Seriously, the Grand Dragon is one of the most requested variants on the forums, right up there with the BJ 2.

The main issue with the Timby is that it had rear-facing launchers, and that couldn't be replicated in MWO, so they moved them up front.

[RestosIII]

TELEFORCE, on 24 September 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

I think that the Dragon and the Phoenix Hawk are the worst offenders of weapon geometry since they both go against the source material that has depicted them a certain way for over 20 years.

The Timber Wolf I feel is second worse since the missile tubes are all supposed to go in the shoulder-mounted missile racks and not off the sides of its torsos.

Third I feel is the Warhawk. I never liked how the missile racks were underslung on the arm in MWO. They're supposed to be mounted in the shoulder like the Arctic Cheetah.

My main complaints are the Mad Dog and Warhawk just because of our poor barrels being lego-fied. the Mad Dog and Warhawk arms like a good 1/3rd of their proper length, and aren't barrels any more. Just laser boxes.

[Y E O N N E]

Requiemking, on 24 September 2016 - 04:34 PM, said:

Except, just quirking things to make up for a easily correctable weakness is not the way to go. The MLX, even without weapons in them, still has massive ogre arms. The weapons boxes, especially in the left arm, make it stupidly easy to rip them off, and once their gone, there goes all your firepower. Torso twisting isn't an option because if you do, you lose that firepower even faster than normal. Hence, I don't think moving the weapon boxes around and resizing them is going to damage the MLX's aesthetics that much.

Durability and geometry are inherently linked. There are plenty of 'Mechs with geometry deficiencies that cannot be covered up in any way except with quirks lest they lose their identity. I see no reason why PGI should make an exception for the MLX, a 'Mech very few people will play even after such a change simply because it is slow, under-gunned, and inherently squishy at 25 tons. I don't think it's a stretch to say that people like me, who play it entirely for its aesthetic and flavor, should be higher up on the list of "people to satisfy" when it comes to helping the MLX.

That said, if the MLX could run at 140+, it would lose arms at about the same rate as an ACH or FS9 if you were to strip their arm armor down to MLX levels. And moving the laser boxes, making them a little bit smaller, will not change much in and of itself simply because the arm itself covers the entire side and also juts out the back. It's still stupid easy to hit...which by itself is nothing shocking because arms on those aforementioned heavier Lights are also stupid easy to hit.

Ergo, more armor quirks is the way to go.