13 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Its not about balance but about the look and feel.
(EDIT: future proof description- in Post 3)

TLDR:
Now - a weapon model for each hard point (see banshee below)
Then - a "socket" for each combination of hardpoints
: example: the Model of the Large Laser is the same for Banshee, Commando and Enforcer - only the "fitting" between Mech and Weapon is modeled individual.



reason - look and feel and maybe the workload for the 3060 weapon releases.

I will use the simple right arm of the banshee as an example -
why banshee?
Well first it got one of the most weapon hardpoints of a IS BattleMech
And the recordsheets are pure chaos and need to be "corrected" first.



When you consider the 3S; 3S Rheinsblatt, 5S; 5S Sawyer, 5S Vandergriff and the 7S
there seem to be a pattern:

so the Right Arm of the BNC get 2 Medium Laser
the Right Torso will loose 2 Energy HPs that move into the RA
the 2nd heavy weapon moves to the LA and stay there (5S)
no missiles in the RA (5S vandergriff)

so the layout look like:
RA: 2 E
RT: 3 E 1 M
CT: 1 E
H: 1 E
LT: 1 B
LA: 1E

but instead of the "free" weapon placement now the "size" and weight consideration. This will drop the number of possible variants hard.

lets have a look: BNC right arm:


a Energy HP with a total of 5tons and 2 slots.
This means you can have 2 Medium Laser; 2 Medium Pulse Laser; 1 Large Laser; 1ER-Large Laser and 1 LPPC.
You can't have a Snub PPC, Large Pulse Laser, PPC, HPPC.

Small Lasers, Flammer and TAG will need a different HP group.

important is the "socket" the socket for a Hardpoint should look similar over all chassis.
So an E hardpoint size 2 Mass 5t (or E2M5) socket should look similar on the BNC arm as on the Enforcer arm, or Panther arm.

in this case you really need to "model" the weapons for this socket and can take the same model for every Mech.
This should drop the "size" of a patch and the workload for "new" mechs because you only need to fit the socket not longer the weapon.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 09 July 2017 - 10:13 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Hey with mass and crits its not even necessary to limit the kind of harpoint or the numbers:

[Karl Streiger]

The LIGHT version:

The weapon visualizing creates a number of weapon models for each mech. This is based on the combination that are possible given size and number of hard points.
So you might not have 1 AC 20 or 2 UAC5s for the CN9-D - but you need them for the CN9-AL and YLW.

The consequcence is a huge and "unnecessary" bulk of weapon models - each model has the same base but has different "connectors" to connect it to a Mech - can look good on some and very bad on others.

Just as a example the RT of the Atlas:

• 2 MGs
  
• 2 AC 2
  
• 2 AC 5
  
• 2 UAC 5
  
• 2 LB 10X
  
• 1 AC 10
  
• 1 Gauss
  
• 1 AC 20

Considering that there will be weapon visual models with 3060 tech

• 2 LMGs
  
• 2 HMGs
  
• 2 Magshots?
  
• 2 LBX2
  
• 2 UAC 2
  
• 2 RAC2
  
• 2 LAC 2 ?
  
• 2 LBX5
  
• 2 RAC 5
  
• 2 LAC 5?
  
• 2 LGR
  
• 1 UAC10
  
• 1 LBX20
  
• 1 UAC20
  
• 1 HGR

You see the bulk becomes bigger and bigger - consider the number of Mechs this is a huge work load for a couple of 3D artists.

The solution - is the socket system:
You have already the work to fit the weaon to the location - so why not fit a "generic" socket to that location.
You don't even need to use the hardpoint sizes I mentioned earlier.

Consider the RT of the Cyclops, Mauler, Banshee(LT), and Atlas.

You have 1 Ballistic; 2 Ballistic; 3Ballistic and even 4 Ballistic Slots and for those are 12 crits maximum available.

To make it simple call them STS1, STS2, STS3, STS4.
After you fit them to the Mech -you design weapon visuals based on the socket size - ONCE.
So every ST with a STS of the same size can use that weapon visuals.
For example 2 UAC5s - in a STS2 - will fit into a Cyclops, Banshee, Mauler and Atlas alike.

[Generic Internetter]

All I can say to this is:

"HUH?!"

[Karl Streiger]

Generic Internetter, on 24 May 2017 - 11:29 AM, said:

All I can say to this is:

"HUH?!"

OK considering the wall of text

I try it with a list:

• Mechs have several hardpoints per location
  
• each Weapon has a 3D model for every location and Mech
  
  • for example for the Zeus LA
    
    • you have 3 PPC representation
      
    • 3 Laser representation
      
    • some ballistic weapons (for maximum of 2 HPs)
  • necessary to fit every weapon to the location
    
  • or change look from artwork (CN9-RA)
• cause awkward looks
  
  • thumb laser for the MAD-BH (because 3 HPs)
    
  • small PPCs for K2
    
  • alienate weapons on the Stalker ST - PPC there doesn't looks good anymore
    
  • tiny ACs - because of same space as machine guns
• new weapon model increase number of models for each mechs location

Now the change

• you create an intermediate model - the socket
  
• fit between location and the weapon cluster
  
  • so for the Zeus LA
    
  • you have 1 socket
    
  • you have all the weapon combinations you have now (without HP sizes)
• weapon clusters are exchangeable
  
  • don't need to model the PPC for the Banshee LA any different to the K2 arm
    
  • can have more weapon models, for less hard drive size (different models for laser)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 29 May 2017 - 04:11 AM.

[Nightbird]

PGI doesn't understand volume. A locust is not 1/5 the volume of an atlas, it is closer to 1/20th the size. Because of this, you don't have the surface area to put in the same weapon slot on a locust versus an atlas, so you need a sliding scale. This means the same weapon, ex. ppc on a big mech will be much larger than on a small mech, otherwise the same weapon size will look ginormous on a small mech and still be a pin needle on a big mech.

[Karl Streiger]

Yes this is true. And they scaled the weapons so that they are tiny already (Stalker PPC)
OK given the enormous size of MWO Mechs the size/volume might fit - the AC20 in the Atlas is 15 inch.
But it doesn't look good on most Mechs
Thats why i proposed the size and mass HPs.
When you can mount LRM5s in all locust variants you still have only one with quirks.
But it need the right variant to have specific weapons; there are 20t Mechs that can have a ppc.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 29 May 2017 - 10:43 AM.

[MechTech Dragoon]

This is great, and more people, including pgi need to see this, its a perfect idea.

[Excalibaard]

I think weapon hardpoints/socketing does need an overhaul. Some weapons like µ-lasers, flamers and machine guns could use separate sockets from the much larger ballistics which are closer together, it makes no sense to spread out machine guns over the space of 4 AC2s for example.

[Karl Streiger]

Excalibaard, on 08 June 2017 - 03:11 AM, said:

I think weapon hardpoints/socketing does need an overhaul. Some weapons like µ-lasers, flamers and machine guns could use separate sockets from the much larger ballistics which are closer together, it makes no sense to spread out machine guns over the space of 4 AC2s for example.

There are 2 anwers:

First could ignore it by using hardpoint sizes that would be a natural limiter. (See above Commando Arm with MGs)

Second: the design of the weapon placement is independent from each other.
Currently the machine gun need to be placed in the same location that can consume a AC5 or even AC20.
With the change you can put 4 MachineGuns it this location. (You only have 4 Hardpoints)

Sure it might not be a dynamic process - maybe you do the work in the MechLab and with "Save" the weapon placement and combinations are calculated.

ultra simple drawing

1 HGR und 1 AC2 in a Quad socket vs 4 Machine Guns
---------__-----..|..|..----------------
--------/----\---..|..|..-------x-x------
--------\__/----..|..|..-------x-x-------
--O-------------..|..|..----------------

Crude but I think you get it

Edited by Karl Streiger, 06 July 2017 - 04:07 AM.

[LordNothing]

yea the way they have to add weapon meshes to existing mech meshes is really troublesome when you do cool things like add new weapons. its one of those quality of life things that pgi should really do. every weapon could have a unique model. you could add more weapons without a major overhaul to every mech model in the game. in fact this is what living legends does. ive worked on mods that use such features and it is such a time saver. do it.

Edited by LordNothing, 07 July 2017 - 04:26 AM.

[BTGbullseye]

LordNothing, on 07 July 2017 - 04:24 AM, said:

yea the way they have to add weapon meshes to existing mech meshes is really troublesome when you do cool things like add new weapons. its one of those quality of life things that pgi should really do. every weapon could have a unique model. you could add more weapons without a major overhaul to every mech model in the game. in fact this is what living legends does. ive worked on mods that use such features and it is such a time saver. do it.

Sockets for models have been a thing since forever... A big game that did it well was Freelancer, so this was a common thing 18 years ago.

[LordNothing]

BTGbullseye, on 15 April 2018 - 03:07 PM, said:

Sockets for models have been a thing since forever... A big game that did it well was Freelancer, so this was a common thing 18 years ago.

ugh that game was a pita to mod. all those ini files. nightmares. but 30 hardpoint gunboats were kind of cool. never got past the screwing around phase with that one.

Edited by LordNothing, 15 April 2018 - 06:30 PM.

[BTGbullseye]

No more difficult to mod than any other game I've ever modded, especially when you're using the FLMM mod manager.

But I digress...