33 replies to this topic

[RestosIII]

Anjian, on 27 December 2016 - 10:50 PM, said:

Missile launchers can be made small, like I have seen with another mech game. Or they can be slanted to lower height, e.g. Mad Cat Mk IV from the Dark Age era. I don't think its hard to adopt the launchers you see on the Mark IV.




Usually the big external weapons, particularly with other mech games, happen to be the big cannons and guns. They tend to be so big, its generally a phallic expression like the massive big swords you see swinging around in fantasy games.

You can see from this example, the missile launchers are literally dwarfed by the phallic cannons.

Anjian, on 27 December 2016 - 10:57 PM, said:

How would slanted launchers not look right on the Timberwolf when its on its 4th generation successor.

The Mad Cat Mark II also features slanted launchers, but the old artwork would have to be redone since in my opinion its way too tall.

Note the weapons actually internal weapons encased inside an "arm" which is more BT parlance, rather than huge completely external weapons.

I never really cared for the slanted launcher design. Always preferred the later art of the Mad Cat MK2, and this beauty is the best drawing of it I've ever seen



I'd honestly hate it if the Timber Wolf got slanted launchers, since it would change the character of it too much. That, and it still wouldn't help the fact that they're still giant targets from the side and back.

[Anjian]

For me it doesn't make sense for LRMs, which have an upward trajectory at launch, should have horizontal launchers. Horizontal launchers make sense of SRMs, which are direct fire LOS weapons, but LRMs go up and are better off expressed as slanted launchers. As for being giant hit boxes that depends. If you carefully design and place your slanted launchers, you can keep the height increase minimal.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Separate shoulder hitboxes were probably considered at one time. When the cockpit used to glitch occasionally, the paper dolls would show separate hitboxes on the shoulders...




Somewhere down the line PGI decided not to go that route. It's possibly because it goes against the paper doll of the Table Top game, or maybe because they felt it wasn't necessary. Who knows *shrug*.

My guess is, if it has been half implemented in the game for a long time, and nothing has come of it, then PGI has probably decided it wasn't worth pursuing further and it probably won't happen.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 28 December 2016 - 03:37 AM.

[jjm1]

If every hardpoint could be destroyed independently that would be cool. But the damage done to a hardpoint has to be equally applied to the body part its mounted on.

The head should work the same way IMO. So damage to the "head" (aka the arbitrary square somewhere on a mechs front windshield) should also be applied to the CT. Otherwise its soaking up a bit of damage while your technically not missing the CT.

This harmonises very well with the concept of hardpoints having their own stats. So huge encased weapons might get more armor to compensate for the hits they will be getting. Special weapon slots (dragons big gun, atlas hip ballistics, unused arm mounts in general, etc) get all sorts of bonuses while smaller higher mounted CT weapons act as supplemental to the mechs "main" guns and get no bonuses.

It adds another avenue to balance mechs, and a way to make lore friendly weapon load-outs competitive with high mount zombie meta at the same time. win win.

[Lostdragon]

The big thing you have to consider and the main reason I think PGI did things the way they did with the TBR is hitpoint disparity. If you give the TBR seperate hitboxes, armor, and/or structure for the ears then it either has more HP to soak damage than equivalent tonnage mechs with normal hitboxes or it has to trade armor and structure from somewhere else which would make it gimped. Every mech of the same weight needs to have the same number of hitboxes for the sake of balance, so if you start doing one off hitboxes for special geometry then you are opening a dangerous can of worms.

[SuomiWarder]

I do not recall ever being able to target specific equipment in MWO. Even in closed beta if you shot the mouse ears of a Catapult (which are boxy looking LRM launchers) you hit the "arm". In the PnP B Tech everything is covered by the armor of a body location except I think the anti personel bombs you could mount on a mech's legs.

I see little if any reason to change that.

[RestosIII]

SuomiWarder, on 28 December 2016 - 02:28 PM, said:

I do not recall ever being able to target specific equipment in MWO. Even in closed beta if you shot the mouse ears of a Catapult (which are boxy looking LRM launchers) you hit the "arm". In the PnP B Tech everything is covered by the armor of a body location except I think the anti personel bombs you could mount on a mech's legs.

I see little if any reason to change that.

Uh... that's because the ears on the Catapult are literally the only "arms" it has. Stuff like the missile racks on the Timber Wolf though are visually just giant boxes strapped onto the ST's, and shouldn't rip the entire ST and arm off when it gets shot up. That's what we're asking for.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 27 December 2016 - 07:39 AM, said:

You mean one of the best, the only reason it was bad was because Mektek would later abuse it by adding chin racks that obstruct CTs to everything. It allowed things like the Mauler and Timber to not be horribly gimped and still keep their unique missile ear profiles.

can we hold on this til after MW5...or at least Battletech2017 launch? So I can play a game semi resembling the IP it claims heritage from? Once there's an alternative, feel free to turn this place into MechAssault, and you won't hear a peep outta me.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

can we hold on this til after MW5...or at least Battletech2017 launch? So I can play a game semi resembling the IP it claims heritage from? Once there's an alternative, feel free to turn this place into MechAssault, and you won't hear a peep outta me.

Since when did MW4 = Mechassault? Adding special sections to allow for special pieces of geometry that are common on mechs like missile bunny ears is not that game-breaking for the IP anymore than quirks are.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 December 2016 - 03:12 PM, said:

Since when did MW4 = Mechassault? Adding special sections to allow for special pieces of geometry that are common on mechs like missile bunny ears is not that game-breaking for the IP anymore than quirks are.

I'm saying that once I have an alternative, change it however is needed to make it a better shooter. Just can we not further change the game until lore grognards have some sort of alternative? Got people wanting to add free ears, other people begging to make IS XLs and C-XLs the same, etc......

If folks were to start pushing to have a meaningful heatscale, true energy draw type system (not GH 2.0), non-instant convergence, or the dreaded "imperfect aim" (by any number of means... I'm all for it, as those are ways to enhance TTK, playability, immersion, etc, without further sacrificing the core of the IP.

But if we're just lookign for ways to make it a better whizbang generic shooter, than can't say it's convos that interest me. That said, I'm not trying to keep you guys from having the game you want, just hoping to have an alternative game to play that I want, before you guys get your way.

And the MechAssault thing? Just remember for everything you are pushing for to make the game better suit your vision, there are just as many people pushing for their vision, which you may not like. So be careful what boxes you open.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2016 - 03:24 PM, said:

Got people wanting to add free ears

I don't see how that is against the IP given that geometry was never a facet from TT, expecting things to be 1:1 and workout is just silly. I prefer the idea that some mechs may need extra sections as opposed to massive quirks to avoid the generic shooter effect where you can get killed by being shot in the pinky.

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2016 - 03:24 PM, said:

But if we're just lookign for ways to make it a better whizbang generic shooter

I'm not sure I'm making the connection between adding extra hitboxes/sections to help mechs with odd/unfortunate geometry and making this game more generic.

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2016 - 03:24 PM, said:

And the MechAssault thing? Just remember for everything you are pushing for to make the game better suit your vision, there are just as many people pushing for their vision, which you may not like. So be careful what boxes you open.

That shouldn't be a motive to not make the game better.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 December 2016 - 03:29 PM, said:

I don't see how that is against the IP given that geometry was never a facet from TT, expecting things to be 1:1 and workout is just silly. I prefer the idea that some mechs may need extra sections as opposed to massive quirks to avoid the generic shooter effect where you can get killed by being shot in the pinky.


I'm not sure I'm making the connection between adding extra hitboxes/sections to help mechs with odd/unfortunate geometry and making this game more generic.


That shouldn't be a motive to not make the game better.

"better" seems to be a point of contention

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

"better" seems to be a point of contention

From a game design perspective, not a "is this 1:1 with how lore or TT is".

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 December 2016 - 03:40 PM, said:

From a game design perspective, not a "is this 1:1 with how lore or TT is".

even game design, doesn't seem like any two people can agree, but it is what it is.