283 replies to this topic

[CK16]

Judging by the outrage on Twitter. Reddit, here on the forums, and ect from the first model shown during the countdown and the little bits (usually the same like dozen people if that honestly it seems....) the majority want the new model. People always flip more **** when not satisfied or agree then when they do....remember negative experiences usually are always known and reported about the. The the usual many good experiences....

[The Lighthouse]

No, the mech is too ugly in current state.

I'd rather take 'nerfed' Blood Asp than this.... abomination we have right now.

I may even spend real cash if PGI fixes the mech well.

Edited by The Lighthouse, 29 May 2018 - 03:11 PM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

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

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.

First. We have all been around long enough to never trust the concept art. There are tons and tons of mechs that look smaller or thinner or have different shaped hit boxes than we expect on the release model. Damn near all of us have been around long enough to know better than ever trust anything other than the RELEASED version of the mech.

So we wait to the mech releases, read and watch reviews, look at the RELEASED hit boxes, maybe even, like myself, test the waters with the Basic Pack before we dive in deep and get the hero and/or reinforcements. AFTER we have seen the release mech, watched the reviews, tested the basic pack, we make orr purchasing decision. I spent $30 on the reinforcement pack and hero BECAUSE it had the stubby mounts that didn't have an adverse effect on the Blood Asp's Hit Boxes.

So who is more right here? Someone that based their buying decision on Concept Art that is never 100% reflective of what the final in game model or someone who waited until the release of the mech to make their buying decision?

Second, I was part of those debates about the side torso mounts and read how people didn't like the Asymmetric size and shape but I read an absolute ton of people commenting on how they felt the long barrels and overlarge mounts would be a major issue for the Blood Asp. I even created a Blood Asp DOA thread myself and many people agreed with me totally so to say people were only complaining about the Asymmetric mounts is totally false, there are plenty of people who were very concerned about the size of the side torso mounts. Hell there are many people in this thread agreeing with me so your comment that only a minimal amount of people have a problem with the change is wrong.

Third, I expressly point out in my post that you quoted that reducing the ST mount may or may not have been about correcting the hitboxes to make the mech more viable but that is what I was thinking when I saw that they did. I quite literally said to myself, "Thank god PGI went with the Stubby mounts so we don't have to deal with another disappointing mech release." Whether it was the reason why they did it or not is irrelevant, the change pro-actively corrected something that could have been a very real issue for the Blood Asp.

As for the refund, no I don't expect PGI will actually refund me didily, but that doesn't mean I am not going to ask for it IF the change has a negative impact on the performance of the mech. On the other hand, I do have other mech packs pre-ordered and I sure the hell can ask for those refunded. However, if they go through with the change and the quirk the Blood Asp so that the performance and general tankyness stays the same, then whatever. I think the long barrels kind of look stupid but I can live with long barrels as long as the performance of my investment doesn't go down. I didn't spend $50 on this mech to have it Nerfed just because some players want it to look cool. I actually enjoy playing it too much for that BS to be tolerated.

Edited for Spelling.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 29 May 2018 - 03:41 PM.

[Remover of Obstacles]

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

... the majority of the community.

Not sure this is true.

Not sure even the majority of twitter users want this change.

Some might want the location of the weapons to be on the upper portion of the existing hunch. Gasp.


Make the barrels a free bolt on for pre-orders. Done. Use the big barrels if you want. Or don’t.

[CK16]

PGI wouldn't act and do this if there was not a lot of request for it. Obviously more then not doing it...fact...

[Y E O N N E]

While we're changing geo on 'Mechs that have now shipped...can we get the ears on the Nightstar turned into variable geo? Please? Pleeeeease?

[Angel of Annihilation]

Remover of Obstacles, on 29 May 2018 - 03:52 PM, said:

Not sure this is true.

Not sure even the majority of twitter users want this change.

Some might want the location of the weapons to be on the upper portion of the existing hunch. Gasp.


Make the barrels a free bolt on for pre-orders. Done. Use the big barrels if you want. Or don’t.

I kind of agree here. It is very possible it is just the vocal minority that is encouraging this change I mean I can't really see any rational person saying they want a mech nerfed, perhaps substantially so, just to make it look cool. That just doesn't compute with my logic circuit at all. It even makes less sense when you consider that you can't even see your own mech when your actually playing the game. I mean sure, you can play in 3rd person mode if you wanted to but guess what? You still can't see the damn barrels on the front of your mech even when playing in 3rd person.

I think that is one of the biggest reason why I am so damn salty about this. I mean when the "Community" wanted the Night Stars arms to be raised to cockpit level, I completely disagreed because I felt it would ruin the convergence of its weapons and you would find that most of your shots would end up hitting terrain on one side or the other of your mech and my prediction came true and the mech sucks partially because of it. Still I understood why people wanted the arms to be cockpit level, at least there was some logic to it and it potentially could have made the mech better. This though, I just don't understand. Nothing good, nothing, comes out of this change to the Blood Asp. It is a straight up nerf no matter how you view it. This change can only come about by them increasing the surface area of the ST hitbox which means it is a bigger target to hit and shoot at. There is no redeeming factor to this, no silver lining in terms of possible performance, nothing, zero, nada except that in some peoples eyes it will make the mech look cooler. Whaaaaaat???? Are you fricken idding me?

I am downright pissed off and upset about this stupidity, I think more than I have ever been about anything since I started in closed beta simply because it is just absolutely, mind boggling, crazy that people want a mech nerfed for no other reason than to make it look cooler. Worse, that PGI seems to be listening to them. This is not the kind thing I want a developer to listen to, hell PGI has to be laughing their *** off right now. I can see it now, "Hey Russ, get aload of this. People are actually whinning to us asking for an intentional nerf to the brand new mech that just came out." Russ, "What? You got to be kidding me. What do they want us to do." Chris. "They want us to actually increase the size of the ST hitboxes so the mech will look cooler". Russ "Your ******** me? Really? Seriously? Well far be it from me to not give the community what they want" Busts out laughing with Chris and Russ rolling around on the floor both thinking that WE ARE ON A ISLAND, the one with the looney bin located in the middle of it.

[Y E O N N E]

TBF, raising the arms on the NSR did very little to harm the convergence. Basic geometry. Blood Asp, though, has nothing to gain whatsoever other than dashing good looks. Maybe.

[Throe]

[deleted by user]

Edited by Throe, 08 November 2018 - 05:58 PM.

[Nightbird]

The NSR arms became 2% wider in exchange for a 10% faster top poke. It's a good trade but the mech still has jet engines making the mech a fast casket.

[Ruccus]

Personally (and as a Blood Asp owner) I like the direction of the changes, though to me it seems the proposed mounts are still a bit too tall.

The concept art looks awesome - just copy that, it's not rocket science. Long and thin, above the cockpit, and extending out to or a bit past the nose of the cockpit. Currently all the designs have bloated and stubbified the mounts to make them look nothing like the concept art.

I want to be able to see my gauss rifles above and to the right and left while looking ahead, not beside the cockpit and only when using freelook.

[ANOM O MECH]

CK16, on 29 May 2018 - 03:57 PM, said:

PGI wouldn't act and do this if there was not a lot of request for it. Obviously more then not doing it...fact...

That is an assumption. Considering PGI's very hap hazard methodology for well geez....everything you can't say that.

For all we know there was internal pressure from the artist.

Either way it is making a mech worse. Which is really dumb. You are also seeing more than a half dozen and if PGI goes ahead with this nonsense you are going to see a lot more that are going to be here petitioning to get their money back.

Art and aesthetics are subjective. Geometry and hitboxes however in this game are not. It is insanely stupid in such a special way, that form over function is actually something that people are fighting for.

This is really akin to putting square wheels on a car because it looks better....

[CK16]

Except. .you know....the mech will still be very functional...unlike square wheels on a car....I bet a mechpack people will die the exact same as now and most mechs....ct cored....or all the mech beat up.....stop making a mountain out of a mole hill....

[Jackal Noble]

More like octagon wheels - they still work, they just suck.

[Thorn Hallis]

I'm unhappy about the upcoming changes. I like the upper ST mounts the way they are now. The lower ST mounts are the ones needing a rework.

But I can also understand the people that wont the 'Mech look good in their garage. Dunno if it could have been possible to add new omni pods with the changed ST mounts.

I'm aware that a refund past release is out of question, so I'm not asking for it. But if I find my Blasps performance lacking there are other pre-orders to cancel. Simple as that.

[Luminis]

I'll at least ask for a refund if the changes are announced. Bit different from a regular nerf so we'll see. After all, I only ever decided to buy it after seeing the current in-game model, never was told the visuals were subject to change or anything. A solid reason to ask, at least, especially since I vastly prefer the current look.

But anyway, let's not forget who they're doing it for: https://mwomercs.com...t-to-come-back/

Edited by Luminis, 29 May 2018 - 08:52 PM.

[BTGbullseye]

tker 669, on 29 May 2018 - 07:34 PM, said:

Either way it is making a mech worse.

Prove it, and not just from assumptions.

[El Bandito]

A clustergunking donkey parable, that's what it is. First time I feel sorry for PGI.

[Luminis]

BTGbullseye, on 29 May 2018 - 09:07 PM, said:

Prove it, and not just from assumptions.

Exhibit A:The Uziel.

[El Bandito]

Luminis, on 29 May 2018 - 09:11 PM, said:

Exhibit A:The Uziel.

Uziel also suffers from its low mounted cockpit--which allows the enemy to generally shoot at the mech before it can see the them. If its cockpit was high up, I doubt its big STs would been this much of an issue.