242 replies to this topic

[CK16]

I really like the way the Mk II is coming along in the model after seeing the dev stream on Friday. However there is at least one thing that bugs me, that being the Gauss Rifles and other barreled weapons on the Mk II. They stick out way to much from the arm. Like the mounting point set not far enough into the arm.



The barrels are not upside down, meaning the triangles are facing up not down as shown in the concept art. They are also protruding to far out as I said above as well.

So here is what the suggestion I have for a fix (and hopefully a quick fix! )

(Visual above are form Bishop Steiner)

Just simply moving the Gauss Rifles in just by about 2 segments made a world of difference.
It would also end up matching the TRO more with only a bit of the barrel visible form the arm and not the whole barrel.

I mean the MAD IIC and SNV-BR both get their mount points for larger weapons set into the arms more. The Mk II should be the same honestly as these. I know the Devs have said they can not make them GR's larger or smaller as the other mechs in the same weight class, But as shown here. Even the SNV another 90t has the GR much more shielded then the Mk II (that btw those arms were designed to be, shields for the Gauss Rifle just saying )



If anyone wants these adjustments please let it be known here and also if feel like it tweet Russ, Alex, or Arman!

https://twitter.com/russ_bullock
https://twitter.com/Flyingdebrisguy
https://twitter.com/armanguy

Please like and post here to sign the petition and
Vote in the link below!


https://mwomercs.com...justments-poll/

Thanks!

Edited by CK16, 10 May 2017 - 06:26 AM.

[Spectralfx]

+1 at this post.

[Hit the Deck]

by Tarogato

The nose also seems a bit bulbous compared to the concept art.

There are also other minor translation errors on the arms (the GRs are situated a touch higher on the concept art) and crotch area.

[Imperius]

Hit the Deck, on 30 April 2017 - 04:41 PM, said:

by Tarogato

The nose also seems a bit bulbous compared to the concept art.

There are also other minor translation errors on the arms (the GRs are situated a touch higher on the concept art) and crotch area.

Not trying to come off rude but when you have the flip back and forth like that there are a ton more errors I now am picking up Legs designs are off and smaller than concept the , barrels too long, arms too low and too short, and nose is too big.

It could be a perspective issue but I think that is just wishful thinking.

Edited by Imperius, 30 April 2017 - 05:09 PM.

[Scout Derek]

Imperius, on 30 April 2017 - 05:08 PM, said:

Not trying to come off rude but when you have the flip back and forth like that there are a ton more errors I now am picking up Legs designs are off and smaller than concept the , barrels too long, arms too low and too short, and nose is too big.

It could be a perspective issue but I think that is just wishful thinking.

gotta get to tweeting then. I know the MKII is your bby.

[Hit the Deck]

Please, brave TweetWarriors, make this beautiful 'Mech how it's supposed to be!

I might buy the 'Mech later even without the preorder bonus if PGI shows that it has been fixed.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 30 April 2017 - 05:24 PM.

[Imperius]

Scout Derek, on 30 April 2017 - 05:11 PM, said:

gotta get to tweeting then. I know the MKII is your bby.

Hit the Deck, on 30 April 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

Please, brave TweetWarriors, make this beautiful 'Mech how it's supposed to be!

I have been since 40 min into the stream guess you don't check twitter haha

[Pr8Dator2]

The problem isn't the gun gettting long on the arm but the arm getting shorter than the concept art and all available art on the MK2. The arm needs to get longer.

[Scout Derek]

Imperius, on 30 April 2017 - 05:24 PM, said:

I have been since 40 min into the stream guess you don't check twitter haha

lol no actually. I've been too busy surfing reddit and work.

[CK16]

Tweet it, like the post, comment. Need to get attention and support here guys not just up to me and Impy to say something. Simple likes and agreeing shows backing.

https://www.reddit.c...uggestions_and/

Do have it on Reddit as well, so any up votes helps out as well!

Edited by CK16, 30 April 2017 - 05:57 PM.

[Hit the Deck]

I'm glad that this seems to be popular:

[chucklesMuch]

PGI please fix the short arms and airplane nose! And even the angle/tilt of the hips... #notcloseenough

[Bishop Steiner]

Hit the Deck, on 30 April 2017 - 04:41 PM, said:

by Tarogato

The nose also seems a bit bulbous compared to the concept art.

There are also other minor translation errors on the arms (the GRs are situated a touch higher on the concept art) and crotch area.

there are always going to be minor differences, often because of necessity. As long as minor, it's not worth a dumpster fire over. The arms though, are not minor, bt a pretty drastic departure, being much taller and stubbier, and as noted by the OP the weapon hardpoint doesn't need to be taped to the front...it can be recessed to give the more appealing visual.

overall I like the model, tbh, but the arms, especially the weapon mount on it, IMO are about as drastic and noticeable as the forehead and forearm issues on the Enforcer, which ruined an otherwise decent (though also full of minor errors) model, when compared to Alex's superlative concept art.

I also feel the Annihilators canopy looks very off, at least in the perspective shot given, from the art.

On the other hand, I think the Cougar model looks BETTER than the concept art. I will certainly buy th eprime for cbills just because of looks...even though it's hitboxes and speed are going to be terribad.

[Bishop Steiner]

chucklesMuch, on 30 April 2017 - 07:06 PM, said:

PGI please fix the short arms and airplane nose! And even the angle/tilt of the hips... #notcloseenough

I actually prefer the less pointed nose. I always find it a very tough balance between too bulbous and too pointy on the TDR and the mkII. I actually feel the mkII got it more on the right side with the nose profile on the model, tbh, though the concept art is not egregiously too pointy, like some art for it is.

Problem being...so much of this is subjective......

that said, while I am OK with the more rounded nose... I also can totally see where those who bought it want it to be close to the art that they bought into. It's why I made such a big deal when Russ did the Warhammer sneakpeek way back when.... and really got onto them about the head design and the arm angle. Thankfully he listened (that time) and even admitted after it made a huge visual impact.


Now if only we can get them to add arm bounce on our Gundams so they look less stiff and unnatural when moving.....

[pbiggz]

I endorse this thread

[Cy Mitchell]

I am good with everything I see except the weapon covers/shields on the arms appear to need to be extended forward about 10-20%. That would fix it for me.

[Hit the Deck]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2017 - 07:07 PM, said:

there are always going to be minor differences, often because of necessity. As long as minor, it's not worth a dumpster fire over.
...

Well, they are indeed minor but it's pretty major for me so that I didn't pre-order the 'Mech.... I play pretty much only to see beautiful 'Mechs.

Don't get me wrong because I'd very much like to buy the 'Mech even without the pre-order bonuses.

[TheBlackMegadeus]

I get that concept to physical will never be 1:1, but to me the MKII looks like persian cat that needs its face pulled out, the barreled weapons along with gauss need to be pulled into the arm like in the concept. The arms are too stubby compared to the TRO art and concept as they show longer arms.

[Pariah Devalis]

Feel like the arms on the model could use a 20% increase in length. I could easily overlook the less pointy, less aggressive cockpit design, but those arms are really noticeably shorter.

[chucklesMuch]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2017 - 07:07 PM, said:

there are always going to be minor differences, often because of necessity. As long as minor, it's not worth a dumpster fire over. The arms though, are not minor, bt a pretty drastic departure, being much taller and stubbier, and as noted by the OP the weapon hardpoint doesn't need to be taped to the front...it can be recessed to give the more appealing visual.

overall I like the model, tbh, but the arms, especially the weapon mount on it, IMO are about as drastic and noticeable as the forehead and forearm issues on the Enforcer, which ruined an otherwise decent (though also full of minor errors) model, when compared to Alex's superlative concept art.

I also feel the Annihilators canopy looks very off, at least in the perspective shot given, from the art.

On the other hand, I think the Cougar model looks BETTER than the concept art. I will certainly buy th eprime for cbills just because of looks...even though it's hitboxes and speed are going to be terribad.

Yeah I'm not #wemustriot... but it's quite a noticeable change, especially for such an iconic mech

It more about the overall tilt than just the nose for me (though I do perfer slimer). I like the art pictured angles alot more.

I agree about the cougar and the annihilator.