Edited by Dave warrior2, 26 December 2016 - 03:32 PM.
#21
Posted 26 December 2016 - 03:30 PM
#24
Posted 26 December 2016 - 03:59 PM
Yeonne Greene, on 26 December 2016 - 03:23 PM, said:
In this case, the stupidly huge arms is part of the 'Mech's identity; pragmatism has to take a back-seat because that identity is part of the appeal of the 'Mech. Without the stupidly huge arms, it's not a Mist Lynx any more. Artificial or not, the current solution works.
Is it though? Have you looked at Catalysts latest models? Here is the MLX-P, with all 8 energy:
Notice how everything is fit within the base mounting.
This is the MLX-C, with two energy in the right arm:
And the MLX-D, with two energy right arm:
Compare that to what we have in MWO. This is where these images are coming from: http://bg.battletech...-image-gallery/
It's similar in this art as well, no huge housing:
And the housing in the original art wasn't even as big as the hardpoints in MWO get:
Sure, when you add massive amounts of LRM tubes to its arms, it can get pretty ridiculous,
But that is rather characteristic for missile tubes. For energy mounts it does not have to be as absurd.
#25
Posted 26 December 2016 - 04:17 PM
Tarogato, on 26 December 2016 - 03:59 PM, said:
...
For energy mounts it does not have to be as absurd.
That is just as absurd as the way it currently is, you've just got some of it poking outward rather than downward. Actually I would say it is even more wasteful since most of that space is unused, and the hands are bigger.
Regardless, you are still advocating for more expensive work where none really has to be performed. The problem is fixed on all but the 2xE pods.
#26
Posted 26 December 2016 - 04:44 PM
Yeonne Greene, on 26 December 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:
You missed the part where the first image was as ridiculous as it could possibly get - four-energy per arm. There is no MLX in the game presently with a four-energy arm, yet the two-energy mounts we have in game are already bigger targets than Catalyst's full four-energy housing. Have another look:
That above is the MLX-B left arm that we use on many builds in MWO.
Yet in MWO, this is what we have to put up with --- it's a PLATE that is almost designed to collect damage just like the Centurion's shield arm:
Yeonne Greene, on 26 December 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:
Expensive work? Just making the adjustment that I linked originally would probably only be an hour's work at most. We've seen modelers doing their work on PGI's live streams, we know the rate at which they can produce things. This kind of change is not a massive undertaking.
Edited by Tarogato, 26 December 2016 - 04:45 PM.
#27
Posted 26 December 2016 - 04:56 PM
Tarogato, on 26 December 2016 - 04:44 PM, said:
You missed the part where the first image was as ridiculous as it could possibly get - four-energy per arm. There is no MLX in the game presently with a four-energy arm, yet the two-energy mounts we have in game are already bigger targets than Catalyst's full four-energy housing. Have another look:
That above is the MLX-B left arm that we use on many builds in MWO.
Catalyst's B-pod right-arm would catch even more flak than the MWO one. The profile on the lower portion is not appreciably smaller, but we've now added this giant box up top that is going to catch high shots that otherwise would have missed.
The left arm is not even the same model as the others, even when the others zero offensive hard-points. It's not consistent.
Quote
Two more energy boxes added to the E arm at the wrist makes it look more essentially like the B right arm. It's not that bad.
And it would be a plate regardless. You are not precise enough to shoot through the loop in the arm regardless, so you will not fix anything by making the boxes smaller. We still need just as much of the quirk.
Quote
As opposed to 120 seconds in an XML file?
One of these requires more budgeting of your day's activities. The other can be done with one hand during your lunch break.
I will lobby against you on this in perpetuity. You will not convince me to accept smaller boxes. If the visuals on it change, I will sell them, because how they look right now is why I bought them. Just like I would sell the Battlemasters if they swapped to a bubble canopy. The Mist Lynx will never be a comp 'Mech because it is way too slow, so it is not worth sacrificing how it looks just to scrape 0.5% performance out of it, which you aren't actually doing because you are advocating this change more to suit your sensibilities about "artificial" performance enhancements rather than for real performance reasons.
P.S. Catalyst's model looks like sh*t. Again.
Edited by Yeonne Greene, 26 December 2016 - 05:01 PM.
#28
Posted 26 December 2016 - 05:02 PM
#29
Posted 26 December 2016 - 05:03 PM
Scout, on the other hand, it's too slow for. If it gets caught out, it has a harder time escaping.
#30
Posted 26 December 2016 - 05:25 PM
Yeonne Greene, on 26 December 2016 - 05:03 PM, said:
Scout, on the other hand, it's too slow for. If it gets caught out, it has a harder time escaping.
We keep coming back to this idea of it being too slow. Is it really too much to ask to bump its speed up by 20 kph, at the cost of losing a CAP no-one even needs?
As for not following lore, I think a small boost to a mech's engine is less of a major divergence from BattleTech lore than creating an entire new mech, or giving mechs hardpoints they didn't have before.
Edited by Kaonicping, 26 December 2016 - 05:25 PM.
#31
Posted 26 December 2016 - 05:33 PM
Kaonicping, on 26 December 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:
We keep coming back to this idea of it being too slow. Is it really too much to ask to bump its speed up by 20 kph, at the cost of losing a CAP no-one even needs?
As for not following lore, I think a small boost to a mech's engine is less of a major divergence from BattleTech lore than creating an entire new mech, or giving mechs hardpoints they didn't have before.
The Roughneck, while I dislike it, instantly got a thumbs-up from Catalyst, so it's true to lore. Different mech hardpoints/builds? I feel a bit weird about them, but in the cases of hero mechs and mechs that PGI refuses to add new tech for, I can admit to existing. But making an entire mech chassis get the wrong engine, with no way to change it to the proper one again considering it's an omnimech? Hell no. There's a line I'm going to draw in the sand, and you found it.
#32
Posted 26 December 2016 - 05:37 PM
Kaonicping, on 26 December 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:
We keep coming back to this idea of it being too slow. Is it really too much to ask to bump its speed up by 20 kph, at the cost of losing a CAP no-one even needs?
As for not following lore, I think a small boost to a mech's engine is less of a major divergence from BattleTech lore than creating an entire new mech, or giving mechs hardpoints they didn't have before.
If I want to play a small, zippy Light, I've got the Arctic Cheetah, Locust, Commando, and soon maybe the Firemoth or Piranha to choose from. Like big arms, being slow is part of the Mist Lynx's identity. That, and having lots of jump-jets. That's what it is: a moderate speed Light with incredible bounce. If it runs at 143 kph, we're just making it into another also-ran rather than something fun and interesting to mess with when we're not try-harding with the better-equipped alternatives.
#34
Posted 26 December 2016 - 06:41 PM
just play arctic cheetah
#36
Posted 26 December 2016 - 07:54 PM
#37
Posted 26 December 2016 - 07:58 PM
#38
Posted 27 December 2016 - 05:48 AM
RestosIII, on 26 December 2016 - 05:33 PM, said:
The Roughneck, while I dislike it, instantly got a thumbs-up from Catalyst, so it's true to lore. Different mech hardpoints/builds? I feel a bit weird about them, but in the cases of hero mechs and mechs that PGI refuses to add new tech for, I can admit to existing. But making an entire mech chassis get the wrong engine, with no way to change it to the proper one again considering it's an omnimech? Hell no. There's a line I'm going to draw in the sand, and you found it.
I was thinking that only one variant should be changed to have no CAP, 1 fewer external DHS and an XL200. That way you can choose whether you want the extra ton from no CAP, whether you want to go faster or even if you want a more lore-accurate build. I really don't see how this is deeply immoral as it would seriously help this chassis's flexibility and speed.
Edited by Kaonicping, 27 December 2016 - 05:49 AM.
12 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 12 guests, 0 anonymous users