36 replies to this topic

[JC Daxion]

RestosIII, on 03 July 2017 - 02:00 PM, said:

Massive difference between camo, and entire weapon systems. That, and it's still an entire month of only 2 Clan mechs having the correct geometry. I don't understand how anyone can say that's reasonable. Oh, and I'll tweet Russ and ask what the ETA for all Clan mechs having correct geo will be, but I have a feeling I'm not going to get a response.



As a Clan Diamond Shark representative, I highly encourage gambling to all our customers, but personally? I'd rather not put any $$$ up to chance.

I was feeling lucky too!


Maybe try Matt Newman? Russ talked about him i think in the last town hall.. at least i think it was him. Some where in it he was talking about some Art person, that has a twitter handle, and said, "tweet him he is a really nice guy and would be happy to answer questions about Art."

I could swear it was near the end of the session, when the did the player questions and someone was asking if they could show more artwork when the pre-orders where being done to help people decide. I would have to think he would be the one that knows. He even gave out his twitter handle.

Maybe someone else recalls who it was, and what's his twitter handle.

But Look at it this way.. First time in a while IS really got a nice boost in something over clans..


But while you are at it, could you as about IS too? I don't have the twitter.. Maybe i should make an account just to tweet Russ questions.

Rampage, on 03 July 2017 - 02:19 PM, said:

It is not really chance. You would be buying him a Mech. I remember when they said that all the new Mechs released after the July patch would have the new geometry and the existing Mechs would be updated over the next few months. It was during the Civil War tech announcement podcast.

lol Darn! thank you though.. I could of sworn i heard it said in a podcast, Guess my brain isn't failing me yet!

Edited by JC Daxion, 03 July 2017 - 02:22 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

JC Daxion, on 03 July 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

I was feeling lucky too!


Maybe try Matt Newman? Russ talked about him i think in the last town hall.. at least i think it was him. Some where in it he was talking about some Art person, that has a twitter handle, and said, "tweet him he is a really nice guy and would be happy to answer questions about Art."

I could swear it was near the end of the session, when the did the player questions and someone was asking if they could show more artwork when the pre-orders where being done to help people decide. I would have to think he would be the one that knows. He even gave out his twitter handle.

Maybe someone else recalls who it was, and what's his twitter handle.

But Look at it this way.. First time in a while IS really got a nice boost in something over clans..


But while you are at it, could you as about IS too? I don't have the twitter.. Maybe i should make an account just to tweet Russ questions.




lol Darn! thank you though.. I could of sworn i heard it said in a podcast, Guess my brain isn't failing me yet!

Yeah, that is why all the IS Mechs that just got heroes got the new geometry. Those heroes were in the pipeline and thus all the variants got the new weapon looks. Same will happen with the Clan heroes next and then they will move to older stuff as well as whatever they are currently producing.

Edited by Rampage, 03 July 2017 - 02:29 PM.

[LT. HARDCASE]

PGI said, "The majority of mechs have not been retrofitted....."

The truth after it's been run through PGI Translate: "The majority of mechs will not be retrofitted...."

Don't be fooled, the only reason the mechs listed there were retrofitted, is because they were already doing work on the Resistance heroes.

[roboPrancer]

I really don't see reason for concern here, personally. But I'm curious now as to which placeholder actually looks the worst. Noone would be able to tell ppcs or gauss sizes apart let alone heavy lasers and normal lasers. But maybe ac's and mrms will look the worst?

[Skanderborg]

Khobai, on 03 July 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

does it really matter? because all the new weapons are so bad no one is going to use them anyway.

Lol , i was thinking the same thing.

[stealthraccoon]

My snubnose PPC's should be snubbed appropriately.
My light PPC's should be of a smaller diameter than full-weight PPC's.
Heavy PPC's should be able to be seen from a distance as one big honking energy cannon.

This is a simple request, and for goodness sake, let me play with my paper stompy robots action figurines with the correct laser barrels!

[RestosIII]

roboPrancer, on 03 July 2017 - 02:56 PM, said:

I really don't see reason for concern here, personally. But I'm curious now as to which placeholder actually looks the worst. Noone would be able to tell ppcs or gauss sizes apart let alone heavy lasers and normal lasers. But maybe ac's and mrms will look the worst?

It looks really bad to have all ATM 3's as SRM 4's, or 4 ATM 9's being SRM 6's and LRM 10's, and that's what we're going to have when the patch drops.

[Koniving]

Rampage, on 03 July 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

They have to go back and revisit the art on 500+ Mech variants. That is going to take some time. The alternative would be to hold off the timeline jump until it is all done, say 3-6 months from now. Does anyone want that?

it's simply the chassis they have to do it on; each mech contains all the parts for each variant.

[Sjorpha]

Whatever, It's better if they focus on functionality and balance first and graphic update later.

[Snowbluff]

It's not the tech that's in the way, it's the fact that the artists are quad pumping mechs for the civil war packs. There is definitely a back log on this right now.

[DaZur]

Meh...

Complaining about this is ignorance in regards to how weapon geometry is applied.

Weapon geometry is managed through hiding and unhiding geometry that is physically part of the model LOD. As such, each LOD requires a new model of each and every new weapon and tube count... We're talking easily a thousand iterations. Granted, once one is created it can be mirrored to the other chassis but the front end work is still there.

Edited by DaZur, 05 July 2017 - 09:12 AM.

[RestosIII]

DaZur, on 04 July 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

Meh...

Complaining about this is ignorance in regards to how weapon geometry is applied.

Weapon geometry is managed through hiding and unhiding geometry that is physically part of the model LOD. As such, each LOD requires a new model of each and every new weapon and tube count... We're talking easily a thousand iterations. Granted, once one is created it can be mirrored to the other chassis but the front end work is stithere.

I genuinely don't get how people can be defending this with "modeling is hard and there are a lot of mechs."

How low have people's standards of quality dropped? This is a game they're touting as an E-Sports viable game, fully released mind you, that will have weapon systems using placeholder models for 1 month minimum. Not in some beta test or anything, in the actual game. It's just.... AAAAAAGH!

[MadRover]

Khobai, on 03 July 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

does it really matter? because all the new weapons are so bad no one is going to use them anyway.

the IS UAC 20s are super good. i expect those to be recieving a nerf hammer at some point.

[stealthraccoon]

Khobai, on 03 July 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

does it really matter? because all the new weapons are so bad no one is going to use them anyway.

SNUB
NOSE
P
P
C

that is all.

[DaZur]

RestosIII, on 04 July 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

I genuinely don't get how people can be defending this with "modeling is hard and there are a lot of mechs."

How low have people's standards of quality dropped? This is a game they're touting as an E-Sports viable game, fully released mind you, that will have weapon systems using placeholder models for 1 month minimum. Not in some beta test or anything, in the actual game. It's just.... AAAAAAGH!

I genuinely don't get how people take a hard stance on issues they don't understand....

Absolutely, it's genuinely a sub-standard developmental planning foible for PGI. That said, it's purely a cosmetic issue and as such, does not affect the play mechanics. This is why it's not a hard-stop issue.

Anyone who has had to retro-fit geometry changes across multiple LODs can appreciate the upfront workload required do this to a single asset... Compound that with 38 new weapon geometries (Slightly less if they don't make any physical changes for light/heavy/micro lasers) across 60+ mechs and their variants and it's clear this is a huge undertaking.

So yeah... Some folks like myself accept the delay because it's not a copy/paste instant solution.

Edited by DaZur, 05 July 2017 - 10:11 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Yeonne Greene, on 03 July 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

This was to be expected when many existing 'Mechs still don't have rotating UACs (Roughneck) or bobbing arms (Rifleman, Marauder), when the cUAC/10 model and cUAC/5 model ought to have been swapped eons ago, and when some 'Mechs are still using the weapon models from closed beta days (i.e. Blackjack).

I wish the BJ-1 was still using the original AC/20 arm model from closed beta. That thing was awesome. If you shot it really often, it would start to get hot and glow.

[Bud Crue]

Sjorpha, on 03 July 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

Whatever, It's better if they focus on functionality and balance first and graphic update later.

Yeah, see, I take the opposite stance. The only thing driving sales is effectively the mech porn. We don't buy mech packs based on "functionality and balance", because 1) PGI doesn't give us the whole picture of new mechs actual "functionality" until right before they drop in game, and then 2) they change that functionality and balance on a whim.

So to my way of thinking all that leaves both them and us is content that we are willing to buy because it looks great. Yet, in the case of new tech and it application, we don't even know what this crap looks like. In a game whose primary economic success and long term viability is based at least partially on its visual appeal, ignoring the visuals seems to me to be a really big mistake.