283 replies to this topic

[Jay Leon Hart]

FupDup, on 29 May 2018 - 01:13 PM, said:

Still, you're the only one who's brought up the height issue (everybody else focuses purely on length).

Except in every thread I saw the day this hit Twitter. It's been over a week now, I think?

[CK16]

Antares102, on 29 May 2018 - 01:13 PM, said:

Marauders just like Stalkers are stare-at-your-enemy mechs.
When playing my MAD-IIC I never twist and just stare at my opponent since in this situation I have to lowest profile.
Probably wiggle a little bit just as you say to spread damage between all torsos.

Yea, plus the Blood Asp here actually has giant arm hit boxes. If you watch its walk animation, you can see the ends of the torso are with the arms of that makes sense.

[CK16]

Also lets stop pretending that even if the Boxes get a little worse, they are still not horrid (I would give that crown to a Timberwold with LRM-20 ears). The thing still can carry a large CLAN payload, and is fairly mobile for an assault (similar to the Mk II's and no one says that's a large slug, RIP 100 tonners... )

[Antares102]

CK16, on 29 May 2018 - 01:21 PM, said:

Yea, plus the Blood Asp here actually has giant arm hit boxes. If you watch its walk animation, you can see the ends of the torso are with the arms of that makes sense.

Yes, we tested the arm hitboxes of the BAS. Those half-circle shoulder elements covering the arm/torso joint actually belongs to the arm as well which is really great for shielding. This means if you twist, the only how somebody can hit your torso is by aiming for the shoulder pods. And if those are enlarged threefold then good bye shielding-capability.

Edited by Antares102, 29 May 2018 - 01:26 PM.

[CK16]

Antares102, on 29 May 2018 - 01:25 PM, said:

Yes, we tested the arm hitboxes of the BAS. Those half-circle shoulder elements covering the arm/torso joint actually belongs to the arm as well which is really great for shielding. This means if you twist, the only how somebody can hit your torso is by aiming for the shoulder pods. And if those are enlarged threefold then good bye shielding-capability.

In theory yes. But I find in practice it's never that easy to hit such a target as easy as that, unless your target is completely still.

[Jay Leon Hart]

CK16, on 29 May 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

Also lets stop pretending that even if the Boxes get a little worse, they are still not horrid (I would give that crown to a Timberwold with LRM-20 ears).

If you believe that, I have a used garage of Uziels I'd like to sell you.

Timber Wolf ears (at least SRM ones) aren't a patch on the proposed tube cannons.

[CK16]

Jay Leon Hart, on 29 May 2018 - 01:30 PM, said:

If you believe that, I have a used garage of Uziels I'd like to sell you.

Timber Wolf ears (at least SRM ones) aren't a patch on the proposed tube cannons.

Then the shape is already bad. regardless of what the gun pods are.

[Jay Leon Hart]

CK16, on 29 May 2018 - 01:48 PM, said:

Then the shape is already bad. regardless of what the gun pods are.

So why make the shape even worse and put it in a worse place on the 'mech? That's not an argument.

[Reno Blade]

I'm only dissapointed by the QQ for the coming change by some players.

I expect mechs to look like the concept art when I preorder something, otherwise I would wait for Cbill release.
But I am buying mech packs early quite often, and I did so with the BA.

Without the high and long dual mounts, the BA doesnt look as good as expected, so I will be happy when/if they go live with longer barrels.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Reno Blade, on 29 May 2018 - 01:57 PM, said:

I'm only dissapointed by the QQ for the coming change by some players.

I expect mechs to look like the concept art when I preorder something, otherwise I would wait for Cbill release.
But I am buying mech packs early quite often, and I did so with the BA.

Without the high and long dual mounts, the BA doesnt look as good as expected, so I will be happy when/if they go live with longer barrels.

If they offer anyone who wants it a full refund, I can probably live with the nerf. However, we know they won't, so I'd rather they not nerf the 'mech only a month after release.

I *love* the MWO Blood Asp concept art, it's gorgeous. Especially compared to what they did to the Fafnir. However, I much prefer the stumpy ingame model we have to the alternate we almost got, and may get again.

[Vanguard836]

Viktor Drake, on 29 May 2018 - 12:27 PM, said:

So I was just curious if anyone besides me is really upset they are planning to lengthen the barrel on the ST torso mounts, which will increase the side torso hitboxs and which will indirectly nerf the Blood Asp perhaps substantially.

I don't know how anyone else feels but I added the Reinforcement Package and Hero to my purchase specifically because I had a chance to try out the Standard Pack mechs prior to my purchase. I really liked the way PGI proactively adjusted the ST mount lengths to reduce their profile thus improving the hit boxes. I can't say for sure that this was their intent when they shortened them but their intent or not, it gave us a released mech that was very good, good enough for me to add an additional $35 to my purchase.

Now they apparently are going to extend the hit boxes because alot of people were upset that the mech didn't match the concept art and I guess prefer looking cool to actual in game performance. I unfortunately don't and will probably pursue a refund for the Reinforcement Add on and Hero if the change has significant adverse effect on the performance of the Blood Asp.

Anyone aside from me feel it is kind of bait and switch to release a mech with the current in game model and after reviews have went out and people have made purchasing decisions, then decide to change the model which will result in a net nerf to the performance of the mech?

Note: I know there are alot of people pleased with the changes or else this issue wouldn't have came up so you don't have answer back that your pleased or happy about the change. I am more curious about if I am the only one really upset at the incoming nerf/geometry change on the Blood Asp.

First, no I am not.
The changes will more closely reflect the art and first screenshots that were released.

"I really liked the way PGI proactively adjusted the ST mount lengths to reduce their profile thus improving the hit boxes."

No, it was written that it was due to the complaints about the dynamic hard point sizes, with the ballistic pod being huge and the laser pod being the current position and size , not the hit box being a concern. Although the hit box size was mentioned in the release preview thread, only a minority of people have brought that as a concern.

It's been mentioned several times that much more people have expressed their approval and are pleased with the intended corrections to the model with a much smaller amount of players complaining about it.

Edited by Vanguard836, 29 May 2018 - 02:12 PM.

[BTGbullseye]

The weapon fairings are still too tall in that image... They need to be shorter by 1/3 at least, 1/2 is better. The mount height was mitigated by how short the height of the mount was, resulting in the same amount of side view area that could be shot, but it looks like they're still going with the overtall mounts.

[Revis Volek]

PGI NEVER refunds money on DELIVERED GOODS.


IF you got it injected into your account then its yours and no refund. You can ONLY get a refund if you ask for it BEFORE the mechs are injected into your account.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Vanguard836, on 29 May 2018 - 02:12 PM, said:

It's been mentioned several times that much more people have expressed their approval and are pleased with the intended corrections to the model with a much smaller amount of players complaining about it.

More people still expressed their disapproval for the original asymmetrical model, so do we not assume those not complaining about the current model are satisfied? Given the lack of official announcement, the number of players even aware of the intended fix is also much smaller.

[Vanguard836]

Jay Leon Hart, on 29 May 2018 - 02:35 PM, said:

More people still expressed their disapproval for the original asymmetrical model, so do we not assume those not complaining about the current model are satisfied? Given the lack of official announcement, the number of players even aware of the intended fix is also much smaller.

How many ?

[ANOM O MECH]

CK16, on 29 May 2018 - 12:33 PM, said:

Nope, I am happy with the changes...along with the majority of the community sorry bud....it went be that bad though really relax.

No offense most players still aim center mass, not at barrels like that. The only time that sort of geometry is bad is when its larger bill boards like the TBR missiles racks. From the front the gun pods are still narrow targets to hit, specially with projectile weapons.

Majority of the community?

Nope. This issue is very split but the vast majority of skilled players are laughing at the folks who wanted this nonsense.

Mechs should be good. Especially if you pay actual money for them. While potato's won't feel much of a difference, these changes make the mech less competitive and will effect it's usage with skilled players.

Guess you are right in a way though....majority=potato in MWO.

[Revis Volek]

tker 669, on 29 May 2018 - 02:38 PM, said:

Guess you are right in a way though....majority=potato in MWO.

Quoted for truth...

Per the Jarls list only about 1500 player avg 300+ MS, sad state currently.

Edited by Revis Volek, 29 May 2018 - 02:41 PM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Vanguard836, on 29 May 2018 - 02:36 PM, said:

How many ?

Given the initial reaction? Many.

[Vanguard836]

Jay Leon Hart, on 29 May 2018 - 02:41 PM, said:

Given the initial reaction? Many.

Disapproval over the asymmetric mounts is not the same as this issue however.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Vanguard836, on 29 May 2018 - 02:48 PM, said:

Disapproval over the asymmetric mounts is not the same as this issue however.

To quote myself;

Quote

so do we not assume those not complaining about the current model are satisfied?

*made up numbers follow*

If 1,000 people complained about the mounts initially, then 500 people complained about them once they were altered to current ones, and less than 500 people are happy about the fix, the surely more than 500 people would be happy with the current model?

That's what i'm getting at, there is a lot less noise about the model change, either for or against, than the initial reaction. Is it not safe to assume the people no longer complaining are content? If not, why?