242 replies to this topic

[Hit the Deck]

Jingseng, on 02 May 2017 - 08:36 PM, said:

Barrel length still strikes me as being an aesthetic issue and not a more practical, will have a gameplay impact one. That being the case, if so, should probably abandon in favor of ones that are (resources, time, extra work, etc.)

If there is a reasonable gameplay impact, please explain?

Aesthetics is important because that's the reason I'm playing this game.

And that this thread has got more than 4k views.

[CK16]

It is going to be a long 2 months lol...

[Password1234]

The nose is too big

[Bishop Steiner]

Hit the Deck, on 02 May 2017 - 10:57 PM, said:

Aesthetics is important because that's the reason I'm playing this game.

And that this thread has got more than 4k views.

I'd agree, with a caveat of "within reason".

If we start critiquing every milimetric difference, we'll get nowhere.

[Hit the Deck]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 May 2017 - 09:03 AM, said:

I'd agree, with a caveat of "within reason".

If we start critiquing every milimetric difference, we'll get nowhere.

The nose and arms of the 3D model of the MC mk2 are worthy of critics I think.

[Bishop Steiner]

Hit the Deck, on 03 May 2017 - 09:16 AM, said:

The nose and arms of the 3D model of the MC mk2 are worthy of critics I think.

I agree, but again, within reason. Already seeing some folks taking things a little "above and beyond".

[Imperius]

Some black kettles call other kettles black far too often.

[Imperius]

Making sure hard points line up like they are supposed too is very very important to a person like me who only plays one mech and only plans to play one mech.

[CK16]

Ok make note of it but we do not need to derail this entire thing over a few CM's of difference Imp. It is ok to note it but PLEASE do not take this thread down that road that it is only about moving the arms up. If it is that big a deal make a thread like this for that to specifically call it out. This is an overall thread not one particular point (I made my point and so have others made theirs ect.)...I would honestly them fix the Mount point and arm geo over getting JUST the arms moved up a few fractions of an inch.

[Requiemking]

Barrel-length on the Knockoff's Gauss is hardly the most important issue this mech has.....

[CK16]

Requiemking, on 03 May 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

Barrel-length on the Knockoff's Gauss is hardly the most important issue this mech has.....

Req. I am going to ask this once cause I KNOW what you are here to do...You are here probably just to stir the pot, any feedback you give I can not take seriously...I will report you if you stir this pot. This is honestly a serious discussion. You can sit and listen but I request you keep comments to a minimum unless you really have something constructive to say...even then I do not trust your feedback over this mech due to your disdain and past comments trying to only piss us off.

Your past has shown you will just want the opposite of what we say or request JUST to be augmentative. IF you have not purchased this mech, nor care to there is honestly no point for you to leave feedback here.

Edited by CK16, 03 May 2017 - 01:42 PM.

[Requiemking]

CK16, on 03 May 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

Req. I am going to ask this once cause I KNOW what you are here to do...You are here probably just to stir the pot any feedback you give I can not take seriously...I will report you if you stir this pot. This is honestly a serious discussion. You can sit and listen but I request you keep comments to a minimum unless you really have something constructive to say...even then I do not trust your feedback over this mech due to your disdain and past comments trying to only piss us off.

Oh? Even though I've been bringing up valid flaws the MK2 has that no one has been able to bring up a solid counterpoint against, suddenly I'm the bad guy? Yes, I hold disdain for the mech because of it's origins, but recently I've been posting valid points, such as the fact that, with the exception of the MK2-A's ST ballistic hardpoint, all of the MK2's hardpoints are set too far down on the mech to make it a viable poke mech.

[Imperius]

CK16, on 03 May 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

Ok make note of it but we do not need to derail this entire thing over a few CM's of difference Imp. It is ok to note it but PLEASE do not take this thread down that road that it is only about moving the arms up. If it is that big a deal make a thread like this for that to specifically call it out. This is an overall thread not one particular point (I made my point and so have others made theirs ect.)...I would honestly them fix the Mount point and arm geo over getting JUST the arms moved up a few fractions of an inch.

Yup tell your buddy to stop talking about it then, not me! look up in the thread I said my points he said his I said agree to disagree (again not his place to decide what is and isn't important) and I moved on. Someone else (like always) has to poke me and make snide remarks about it. He doesn't even care about the mech. He's just here to troll me like always.

I suggested that someone make this tread after the 3rd thread about a certain issue popped up. You don't see me telling people what is and what isn't important. Address the real problem person and quit attempting to direct it at me like I'm the bad guy. You didn't fly to Vancouver and post for 4 years to get the Mad Cat MK II in the game. You definitely showed great support. I'll tag you in a tweet in a moment. I already said I'd be watching!

Edited by Imperius, 03 May 2017 - 03:16 PM.

[Odanan]

Gimpy117, on 01 May 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

I don't agree on the arms, balance reasons

Do you prefer to lose the arm or the side torso AND arm?

Sure, if they make the arm longer, they will need to shrink a little somewhere, to keep the same volume.

[Khobai]

unless they make arm length a new skill in the skill tree

and then you can spend skill points to adjust how long you want your mech's arms to be

[Bishop Steiner]

Requiemking, on 03 May 2017 - 01:44 PM, said:

Oh? Even though I've been bringing up valid flaws the MK2 has that no one has been able to bring up a solid counterpoint against, suddenly I'm the bad guy? Yes, I hold disdain for the mech because of it's origins, but recently I've been posting valid points, such as the fact that, with the exception of the MK2-A's ST ballistic hardpoint, all of the MK2's hardpoints are set too far down on the mech to make it a viable poke mech.

Yes, no one has brought up any valid counterarguments... oh wait a second, quite a few very good/knowledgeable players have destroyed your points, over and over again, but you just stick your fingers in your ears and keep shouting "nahnahnahnah not listening!!!!" .

Lol.

Imperius, on 03 May 2017 - 01:07 PM, said:

Some black kettles call other kettles black far too often.

Sorry Imp, but as always if I am addressing you? I have no issue actually addressing you, like I have several times in this thread. Including about being overly particular. And like i have in agreeing with several of your assessments, too.

There are more than a few people who are complaining about every quibble. The world, good or bad, this post, and even this mech? It's not all about you.

Your persecution complex is flaring up again. But by all means, go off the deep end again, drive off anyone trying to support you (or at least your desire to see some things fixed, which if you actually take a few moments to reread the posts, most of us were AGREEING with you), and shoot yourself in the foot because you decide you have some entitled demands as to how every centimeter of the mech gets made.... only to the point you piss off the modeler and nothing gets done.

Or.

Maybe.

Once. Just once....?

You can lose the paranoia and the entitlement, and try to play with others, and actually maybe just maybe see good results for it.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 03 May 2017 - 05:21 PM.

[CK16]

Guys please, can we keep this on topic here

Height of arms to low noted, move on and lets keep this in good taste here for the Devs

[Odanan]

CK16, on 03 May 2017 - 05:40 PM, said:

Guys please, can we keep this on topic here

Height of arms to low noted, move on and lets keep this in good taste here for the Devs

Yes, keep on topic, please.
(it was refreshing to see a thread about the MK II to do not implode in the first couple of pages)

[Imperius]

EVERYONES feedback here is important. It's up to PGI to decide what is and isn't too much work. So nobody should be saying anyone's issues with the 3D model are too much work or not important. That's PGI's choice. Please post your feedback and leave others feedback alone.

[LastKhan]

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

Hmm, of course the model wont ever be 100% and it seems to be just compacted a bit, but not a huge issue and could be a perspective thing. From what i see is maybe a need to lengthen the arm out a bit. and the also minor goose / possible weapon issue thats been pointed out. Really I wouldnt want it widened that means more surface area to eat bullets and the model looks way more like its MW4 counterpart since its a gangling looking machine.