48 replies to this topic

[Pixel Hunter]

a taller skinnier centurion would make it better for peeking

but we can't have that can we....

[Tesunie]

Rather Dashing, on 12 April 2019 - 11:15 AM, said:

There is no such thing as symmetry to their weapon designer. This is what two SRM6 looks like in the same side torso.
(Image removed to conserve space)

This is far more of a valid statement than your previous one. I agree that mechs should look "prime" in their base forms. The odd visual of the second missile slot is something that should be used for a custom build that tossed a second missile into a stock empty slot. As it's stock configuration, I'm in agreement here on this case. Then again, this is the hero variant, which by it's nature is a custom mech and never was a "stock" mech. So I am willing to let the hero mechs slide a little...

[Rather Dashing]

The fact of your compliance means you're enabling this man.

[Tesunie]

Rather Dashing, on 13 April 2019 - 07:32 PM, said:

The fact of your compliance means you're enabling this man.

"This man"... Whom are you referring to there?

[Rather Dashing]

The dumb ******* making the weapon mounts, are you dense?

[Tesunie]

Rather Dashing, on 13 April 2019 - 10:47 PM, said:

The dumb ******* making the weapon mounts, are you dense?

I asked because how you made your comment above seemed like I was enabling the person I quoted, which considering that was you left it a bit... confusing.

I'd also mention that, it's likely that the weapon meshes are not determined by just one man, but may be a team effort. You've also been getting increasingly offensive with your posting style, to myself and PGI, and have now started to attack very minor cases. This is despite myself agreeing with most of what you are saying. Is this how you react to people who actually agree with about 90% of your case?

In the post I just quoted, you are now going after the Huntsmen, which can arguably be called one of "the best looking mechs in the game" (in my opinion that is). The picture you've posted has customized the mech, which is one of the statements where I think mechs should look "odd" if it's going to. I mean, after all, you've altered the mech from it's base configuration.

Beyond that, you've mixed and matched omni-pods to get that "odd" appearance. You've got the left arm Pakhet or B, with the B left torso, with the C's right torso and the right arm of the Prime or A... Many of those designs of the weapon meshes look fine on their stock versions.
- The B left arm (as I'm going to presume it's not the Pakhet) comes standard with a PPC and two MPLs with the PPC mounted on the "fist" of the arm.
- The B left torso came stock with two MGs. I currently see no issue with how this pod appears.
- The C right torso comes base that way, and appears fine in my opinion. I see no issue with it at this time.
- The Prime right arm comes with missiles on it's fist by default which leaves the arm lasers to place onto the side. The A arm in this case has much the same thing, where missiles occupy the fist and a laser is forced to place onto the side.

Much of these default pod placements are dictated by the original art of the Huntsman from lore (what this game is based off of). For that, I think they got a lot of it fairly well, without resorting to the need to have each omnipod drastically change in base shape, (AKA: the forearm doesn't form the barrel on the AC arms, but instead just connect to the wrist/fist) making it easier to pop and play with the weapon meshes (and reduce work creating different appearing arms).

(Image location: https://www.sarna.ne...man_(Nobori-nin) )


Now, saying that the Centurion's ballistic arm looks strange with a single AC (it's base configuration) and that it should be corrected I think is a worthy thing to mention. Asking for the energy slots to shrink in appearance (as well as maybe the hunch moving back up to at least cockpit levels) for the 4J is also a reasonable request. Each of those mechs (and some others) look bad with their base loadouts, and many customized ones as well.

I also currently see you going after "not yet released into the game" mechs, which we don't even fully know what they will truly look like. Most of those mechs, from what has been released to us so far, look beautiful (in my opinion) with two minor acceptations from the hero mech, which in my opinion is already a customized mech and has rights to "look a little odd" because it's customized. Though I'm also not in disagreement that the second missile location should be in a similar location as the first (if possible) and the second energy torso location should be located in the central spine rather than to the side, but that's minor issues compared to some other mechs we've got in game.


My suggestion: Find the mechs that are the worst offenders for poor weapon meshes. Focus in on getting those changed to something that looks better. Don't try to force PGI to "rework everything", because that's rather vague and can be seen as an excessive amount of "unknown" work. Focusing in on specific cases may see a face lift on those cases, and provides actual direction.

[Rather Dashing]

Quit blindly defending them. The entire point of that huntsman picture was that it had 1 laser in each arm, yet they were not symmetrical. How can you defend that?

[Tesunie]

Rather Dashing, on 14 April 2019 - 10:40 AM, said:

Quit blindly defending them. The entire point of that huntsman picture was that it had 1 laser in each arm, yet they were not symmetrical. How can you defend that?

Where else would the PPC go from the stock configuration? Where should the lasers go?
If you assign the first weapon to be placed on the side of the arm, then people who take a single energy get "ugly" weapon mesh. If someone takes two as it is now, they get "ugly" weapon mesh. How would you recommend fixing this issue? Make it so the first energy weapon placed is always on the side, and the last is always on the "better looking" fist/wrist? Or, better yet, take the Prime arm, rather than the B left arm pod. I mean, you are already mixing pods up... it's a very minor change that will have both arms now match their weapon mount placements... And suddenly your entire argument with the Huntsman becomes useless. All with a simple swapping of an arm omnipod. Now your "odd laser placement" meets your "symmetrical" requirements.

But that's right. So far you've only commented on this subject as "This is not okay", or "I demand satisfaction", or "This is inexcusable", or "This is completely ridiculous"... etc. What fixes would you propose? How would you suggest these things be changed to look better? What mechs and specific weapon meshes would you recommend being altered for better appearance, and why?

Oh. Sorry. You seem only interested in accusations and finger pointing, with no discussion or actual goal from your complaining. I mean, what's your goal? What would you like to see changed and why? These are very relevant questions, which you continue to fail to actually make remarks on.


My personal standing is that some mechs need their weapon meshes relooked into, at least with relation to their stock loadouts. My opinion is that mechs should look best in their stock configurations, and alterations to the mechs are where minor cases of "oddness" can be accepted.
For example, if the Centurion AC arm was primarily designed to look great with a single weapon, with any additional weapons becoming "under slung" even if it looks a little strange, would be preferable. Right now, the weapon meshes are being designed (or where at that time) to accommodate for all possible amounts of weapons on the mech, hence the Centurion's arm appears like it can hold two or three ballistics on it, despite it's default only having a single AC. This has generated it's very strange appearance with it's stock loadout.
Another good example is the Hunchback 4J (a personal love of mine, so I may be slightly biased). It's missile launchers look to be too low in my opinion compared to it's pre-weapon mesh days. They don't create a recognizable "hunch" which should be the signature of the "Hunch"back. Then the right torso laser array is too large with it's default triple laser configuration, which leads to it appearing even stranger as the assembly sticks out from the rest of the mech's torso. These should be reduced in size to the same size as the arm/head laser mounts, or be moved left, more into the CT.

My view comes with actual suggestions to (what I perceive) as the worst two offenders I know of in the game. I'm not just pointing out how horrible they appear, but also have provided suggestions on possible corrections. You've merely say it's wrong, and seem to think that will solve everything. You actually want no seeming solution, besides to HAVE SOMEONE FIRED for doing their job. A job that, besides a few minor spots here or there, they have done well at. I'll also remark, the worst offenders were some of the earliest mechs to receive weapon mech upgrades in the game, which means they were changed to a new system which had not been attempted before (in this game) nor perfected yet.

So. Are you just going to sit here and moan and complain, or actually try to fix something and provide corrective suggestions and concepts which could be implemented?

[Karl Streiger]

Rather Dashing, on 14 April 2019 - 10:40 AM, said:

Quit blindly defending them. The entire point of that huntsman picture was that it had 1 laser in each arm, yet they were not symmetrical. How can you defend that?

Defend? To know how things work, and know why they are as they are - has nothing to do with defending.
Its just a fact that Tesunie knows how those darn weapon visuals work, you are just one of those DAU customers I fear most.

Want to fix it? Well aks nicely if PGI throws their whole system overboard and invests several months of work into sorting those stuff.
There might have been other solutions but its what we've got. And symetric weapons? Well either you build your mech by choosing proper configurations or not. and by the way - you don't see 90% of those mounts inGame....

So in term of business - you have a tons of work to do for no real gain, but when you want to see things done... maybe you can ask nicely - and offer some money.... you need an 3D artist for minimum a week, a guy sorting data also for minimum a week and finaly someone who code the new nodes.
So 3 guys 1-2weeks - I think when you offer 50-80k$ they will gladly consider a change.

Spoiler

This concept here, for example, might deliver what you are looking for, but its is complete different in approach and creation as PGIs - weapon mount system.
This one here uses - hardpoint sized specific pods - so instead of creating the Gauss again for the Gargoyle, Summoner, Executioner, Hellbringer.... it is only attached to a specific sized "socket" pod.
And the combinations and allocation within this socket is fixed as well.


so for your bad example - even this system will not create symetry by its own. because if you might have a size 3 socket on the left and a size 4 socket on the right and only mounting a medium laser - they might look different and not symmetrical - because its not the fault of the system when the user doesn't know what he is doing

Edited by Karl Streiger, 16 April 2019 - 07:16 AM.