159 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

It makes a huge difference for shielding those fat ST.

Also cockpit mounts vs nipple mounts really does matter. Showing 15% of your mech vs 30% matters too.

[SteelHoves]

Arms are a non issue here. go hill hump with that. enemies will see your side torsos a good second before u get that cockpit over to shoot.

[VirtualSmitty]

First time I've ever cancelled a pre-order ever.

[Tordin]

Disagree with you for once Bishop. When FINALLY PGI tries to correct their error and being true to Alex concept and the TRO/ Lore arm level of the Nightstar (at least very close), they should get some kudos.
Where did the whining go fo not being true to the concept go? I thought that was important for most around here, well at least if it gives a meta vibe like the Nightstar sure got now with alot of the weapon hardpoints being in line with the cockpit.

I dont care if its meta or not though, I care if its true and or better than the concept. However, the geometry should be adjusted accordingly to not make mechs totally useless in gameplay, due to wildly bad placement of hardpoints.

Now if they could bump up the left torso hardpoint for symmetry sake, it would be nice, really nice. The heightened arms could very well compensate for the fact that most variants have hand actuators, hindering bigger weapons.

Only thing with the old height of arms were that it looked better due to looking kinda symmetrical wit those air intakes on the back. Sort of forming an "x" with the angle of the arms. But again function over looks, isnt it? With some constraints of course.

[SgtMagor]

hadn't been on the battlefield for a long time, but I was keeping an eye out for this mech. the arms hanging down does make the mech look better for one, 2nd thing is with the arms hanging a bit you would have a better chance of doing some good amount of damage to ankle biters that want to hug your legs, so those raised arms seem questionable at best and might seriously put you at a disadvantage protecting yourself from light small mechs imho...

[Bishop Steiner]

DerMaulwurf, on 17 October 2017 - 10:26 PM, said:

It's the difference between having your main guns at cockpit height or not. And that's absolutely not minor.

Comp play ain't got nothing to do with it.

most non comp players don't have the reflexes to lock and shoot the moment the guns clear. Nor do most players demonstrate the ability to perfectly stop their mech at the moment of minimum required exposure.

It's like watching fat people in bicycle pants or Olympic swimsuits think it's going to be the difference that makes them a competitor.

You decry the playerbase as a bunch of bumpkin potatoes, then claim that they have the skill, moderate though it be, to regularly make use of that difference. Sorry hoss, you can't have it both ways. Most people in this game expose way more than needed to fire, and don't show remotely good good enough reflexes to stop at the exact moment.

And the people who can maximize that? Aren't likely to use a lame duck with such massive STs. It don't meet comp standards, that is is true. To say that difference will turn potatoes into wonderwarriors? Laughable.

[Sjorpha]

It does look much uglier to be honest.

The height difference is very significant though since the new height is almost cockpit level meaning you can essentially shoot what you can see. Minor differences matter more the closer to cockpit level you get, since it means the difference between exposing whole torso or not when ridge peeking. If they were changed the same amount but from a lower starting point so the new height didn't remove the need for full torso exposure then it would have mattered a lot less, but in this case it will matter.

But yeah, it IS super ugly like this, angled arms looks much cooler. They could have kept a bit of the angle and instead moved the ballistic hardpoints to the topside and achieve the same gameplay impact with less of the ugliness.

[Bishop Steiner]

Paigan, on 18 October 2017 - 05:29 AM, said:

If you have ever played a WHK and then a MAD-IIC with its lasers in the torso (or a similarily comparable pair), you know that a difference like that is HUGE.
The WHK shoots its arm-mounted lasers into the terrain half of the time on most maps (no, I don't really shoot lasers into the terrain like a ret*rd, I don't shoot at all in such cases), while the MAD-IIC can shoot over it just fine.
That change has a similar effect, although inside the same chassis.

(normally, Mechs should be able to raise their arms, preferably automatically to maintain line of fire, but that's of course delusional for me to wish in MWO)

But I agree that aesthetically, the change made an ugly Mech even uglier.

But then again, I remember a thread where I wrote regarding this that the Mechs get uglier and uglier and you wrote that's only my opinion.

Most of the good and acceptable Mechs have already been released.
The rest are inflationary hey-I-have-an-idea-for-another-Mech fanboy crap designs.
The Nightstar is ugly.
The Hellspawn is the ugliest of them all.
The Piranha can even be seen as some kind of animal joke Mech. Compared to that, the Urban Mech is dead serious (being a police Mech and all that).
It can only get worse from here.

considering that the Hellspawn is near spot on to the TRO and MW4, I can't see how it's getting uglier and uglier. Now the Mins for it, are a nightmare, but that's a separate issue.

Tordin, on 18 October 2017 - 07:52 AM, said:

Disagree with you for once Bishop. When FINALLY PGI tries to correct their error and being true to Alex concept and the TRO/ Lore arm level of the Nightstar (at least very close), they should get some kudos.
Where did the whining go fo not being true to the concept go? I thought that was important for most around here, well at least if it gives a meta vibe like the Nightstar sure got now with alot of the weapon hardpoints being in line with the cockpit.

I dont care if its meta or not though, I care if its true and or better than the concept. However, the geometry should be adjusted accordingly to not make mechs totally useless in gameplay, due to wildly bad placement of hardpoints.

Now if they could bump up the left torso hardpoint for symmetry sake, it would be nice, really nice. The heightened arms could very well compensate for the fact that most variants have hand actuators, hindering bigger weapons.

Only thing with the old height of arms were that it looked better due to looking kinda symmetrical wit those air intakes on the back. Sort of forming an "x" with the angle of the arms. But again function over looks, isnt it? With some constraints of course.

At what point was I complaining either way? I've said it looks like *** since the concept art was released. Now it just looks a bit ***-ier, and gets a marginal performance boost.

MischiefSC, on 18 October 2017 - 07:33 AM, said:

It makes a huge difference for shielding those fat ST.

Also cockpit mounts vs nipple mounts really does matter. Showing 15% of your mech vs 30% matters too.

If the difference was that huge, sure. But you are already showing 20% or more just to get the cockpit clear.... the difference is more liek 20% vs 25%. Yes improved but not by some huge margin, and you're still going to be missing an ST by the time that canopy clears anyhow.

[Angel of Annihilation]

I think it is much worse like this. Sure, your weapons are up a bit higher but sticking out to the sides like that makes the convergence horrible, especially for ballistics, not to mention your now going to have to expose a whole lot more of your mech if you want to corner poke. Oh and it is now ugly as sin.

Great job community. You griped and PGI listened. You all managed to turn it into a worse mech with your "High Mount" obsession. This is why I hate the competitive gaming crowd who thinks the game must always be turned to they way the want to play and the other 90% or more of the player base can screw off.

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 October 2017 - 08:37 AM, said:

considering that the Hellspawn is near spot on to the TRO and MW4, I can't see how it's getting uglier and uglier. Now the Mins for it, are a nightmare, but that's a separate issue.


At what point was I complaining either way? I've said it looks like *** since the concept art was released. Now it just looks a bit ***-ier, and gets a marginal performance boost.


If the difference was that huge, sure. But you are already showing 20% or more just to get the cockpit clear.... the difference is more liek 20% vs 25%. Yes improved but not by some huge margin, and you're still going to be missing an ST by the time that canopy clears anyhow.

It's a matter of "If I can see it I can shoot it" for poking. It really does matter -

Though you hit it on the head with your comment on most players. It's true, for most players it won't matter, though the arm shielding certainly will.

[SteelHoves]

Might not be the best Size comparison but look at the difference in Weapon and Cockpit placement. K3 has far superior placement. u expose a minimum of the mech when hill humping. The Night Star on the other hand has to expose a much larger section of its torso and its arms when hill humping. the mech has higher arm mounts now but the cockpit and weapons are mounted almost midway on the mech.

i don't have a Madcat MK2 to show but it has a much higher cockpit and higher weapon mounts vs the night star also. Marauder and the 2c also have variants that contain high mounted torso weapons minimizing the amount of the mech need to expose.

I feel bad people bought into the idea the Night Star would be a meta mech. Maybe it will be IS meta but we all know that is sub par at the moment.

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 18 October 2017 - 08:42 AM, said:

It's a matter of "If I can see it I can shoot it" for poking. It really does matter -

Though you hit it on the head with your comment on most players. It's true, for most players it won't matter, though the arm shielding certainly will.

My issue with that is also that by the time YOU see them, they've been shooting into your STs for a while. The height difference between the ST and and the gunmounts make this thing a turkey to begin with. Only way I see it being successfully is in a brawl role, where it's hulking tail feathers wont matter... but now it has such horrible convergence it shoudl suck at that. Mind you I expect convergence would have been mediocre at best even before. It's just hilarious that people are making a thing over the barrel height when you have to expose commit Archer level exposure to clear canopy in the first place.

SteelHoves, on 18 October 2017 - 08:49 AM, said:

Might not be the best Size comparison but look at the difference in Weapon and Cockpit placement. K3 has far superior placement. u expose a minimum of the mech when hill humping. The Night Star on the other hand has to expose a much larger section of its torso and its arms when hill humping. the mech has higher arm mounts now but the cockpit and weapons are mounted almost midway on the mech.

i don't have a Madcat MK2 to show but it has a much higher cockpit and higher weapon mounts vs the night star also. Marauder and the 2c also have variants that contain high mounted torso weapons minimizing the amount of the mech need to expose.

I feel bad people bought into the idea the Night Star would be a meta mech. Maybe it will be IS meta but we all know that is sub par at the moment.

And this is my point.
\
Yes, cockpit height weapons are better than lower. But you still expose what...35% of your mech to clear guns? So that minor competitive edge, that the average MWO player doesn't have the skill to take advantage of... is largely meaningless, because sans insane Quirks, I don't see the Comp Players who are commenting about the oh so important cockpit weapon height actually using the dang thing.

*SMH*

You could also make a similar comparo with the Anni which has those high torso mounts... not as well placed to cockpit, but the cockpit is a much smaller target than the Nightstars WHOLE FREAKING UPPER TORSO.

Folks you can put as much lipstick as you want on this pig, but it's still a pig.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 18 October 2017 - 08:55 AM.

[Ruccus]

Just look to the sky before cresting a hill. The rear drops to hide the back of the mech, and when you crest the hill look down and start targeting. I agree convergence isn't great but it was never going to be great based on the concept art. I knew that when I bought the mech.

Edited by Ruccus, 18 October 2017 - 09:05 AM.

[Rakshasa]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 October 2017 - 08:02 AM, said:

You decry the playerbase as a bunch of bumpkin potatoes...

Hey now, less of the tuberism. Some of us are growing nicely down here in the soil

[SteelMantis]

Good change, I was happy to see the arms raised.

[Kuaron]

I really love how the Nightstar looks. <3 <3 <3
More before the arms adjustment, though.
If the standard pack variant wouldn't be that similar to one another, I'd have preordered it for sure, too.
Now I'll have wait for the CBill release to get the reinforcement variants, but still, I love the design!

Edit:
If you want to see a fat pig, go look at the Supernova.
Just glad I left out this disappointment, now that we get a decent replacement for a mech in a similar design.

Edited by Kuaron, 18 October 2017 - 09:45 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

To be honest I thought it was longer in the arms and snout.

Should have been modelled as advertised, people bought it on that look, not with the dropped arms.

Mind you the modeller made sure it was never going to be any good as a hill humper with all that crap on the rear 'wings' which should be flush to the main body.

[Hydrocarbon]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2017 - 05:42 PM, said:

First off, it's their money and many have no doubt been burned by PGI in the past.

Second, look VERY closely at the painted yellow suns in various spots. Left torso & left arm - you can see they align perfectly on the "fixed" version. Lower CT (below laser) and inner right arm - again, you can see they are rotated properly on the fixed version.

It is abundantly clear the mech was first designed to match the concept art, then someone decided to spend more man hours angling the arms after the model and paint were finished. I'm not sure about where you live, but this sort of after-the-fact modification is sufficient to be covered under US Consumer Protection laws where credit card pre-orders are concerned. Not to mention it's just a kick in the teeth after several other unpopular decisions by PGI.

I have nothing but contempt for anyone not willing to wait a single day for a polished product.

[MustrumRidcully]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 October 2017 - 07:30 AM, said:

maybe because it's based off an oil painting on canvas, so metallic would be odd?

And they would deliberately recreate the paint effect on canvas instead of just using the same motive on metal?

[Bishop Steiner]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 October 2017 - 10:27 AM, said:

And they would deliberately recreate the paint effect on canvas instead of just using the same motive on metal?

if one is trying to capture the look of the painting, yes. Can't think of a reason why one would need it to appear metallic. Plenty of matte colors.