45 replies to this topic

[KursedVixen]

So why can't we get actual omnimechs without hardpoints? Fixed equipment is cannon but not hardpoints on omnis even inner sphere omnis why can't we have actual omnis does it ruin balance that much to put an AC5 where my CERPPC and a heat sink were????

and even in MW5 without mods we have even worse interpretations of omnimechs...

why couldn't we get real omnis in mw5?

Edited by KursedVixen, 07 July 2025 - 11:21 PM.

[martian]

KursedVixen, on 07 July 2025 - 11:19 PM, said:

So why can't we get actual omnimechs without hardpoints? Fixed equipment is cannon but not hardpoints on omnis even inner sphere omnis why can't we have actual omnis does it ruin balance that much to put an AC5 where my CERPPC and a heat sink were????

That would put the IS in MWO into a very massive disadvantage with the resulting unbalancing of the entire game.

Clan players - such as you - would minmax their OmniMechs to give them the utmost advantage that could be squeezed from the chassis, while the IS players would be stuck with their standard BattleMechs with their fixed hardpoints.

For your information, the IS players have exactly two (2) OmniMechs available (Black Hawk-KU and Gauntlet), while Clan players - such as you - have approximately thirty (30) different OmniMech chassis available.
Spot the difference.

P.S. There is practically no engineering staff available. MechWarrior Online is more or less in the maintenance mode.

P.P.S. There is the entire section where you can post your feature suggestions: Feature Suggestions

[Therax]

Part of the answer is that it would be much more difficult to visually model weapons onto mechs that do not require hardpoints for weapon mounting.

Part of the answer is that it hardpoints are included in the games for gameplay balance and diversification.

[Tiy0s]

Theoretically, it would be a balance nightmare. MWO is a game where we try to make clan and IS mechs equally viable via quirks, allowing clan mechs to equip whatever they want wherever they want when they already have a tonnage and slot advantage would sway the pendulum incredibly in favor of clans.

It would also homogenize the mechs significantly. Hardpoints are a major factor in differentiating mechs, if you went with a "true" omnimech implementation then every clan mech would feel the same. Clan mechs would just become skins with slight variations as you would just be able to put what you wanted on whatever clan mech you felt like playing. Very few of the mechs would remain unique, but a few clan mechs would emerge as the most optimal platforms to stack as many weapons as possible on and a clear meta would develop. Adding new omnimechs would be pointless as they would bring nothing more new to the table.

Logistically speaking, it would be a nightmare to implement. Even if it was implemented from the start of clan mechs in MWO 10 years ago(or when we started development in Clans). I spend most of my time modeling mechs, it's my primary job at PGI(despite the time I spend balancing, making events, etc for MWO). There would be no clean way to effectively model 10 of each hardpoint on each component of every mech, prepare for every potential combination, and have it still look like a futuristic sci fi mech that doesn't look like it was welded in a junkyard. Every mech would need a Hunchback 4P shoulder style mount in every component that is just a blank slate to fill as many weapons as possible on. Even some of the current mechs with all of their hardpoints and lack of real estate to work with are a headache in the current system.

A common response to that is bringing up how you could swap a heavy gauss for 5 machine guns in MW4 Mercs. If MW4 could do it, why can't we? The difference there is that MW4 did not model their mech weapons, MW4 had static mech geometry that didn't change regardless of what you did to the mech. With the PGI mech models, that is not the case.

Unfortunately, this is just another example of a tabletop rule that doesn't translate well into our Mechwarrior implementation.

[KursedVixen]

So anybody going to answer my mw5 question?

[martian]

Tiy0s, on 08 July 2025 - 06:30 AM, said:

Theoretically, it would be a balance nightmare.
...

Perhaps a small explanation is in order: KursedVixen, despite his userbar, does not care about the game balance or canonicity of any kind.

KursedVixen is a Clan fanboy who wants every possible MWO advantage for Clan players in general and for himself in particular.

1) Yesterday he came with a magnificent idea: PGI should create a special Clan version of IS assault OmniMech Templar. Note that he is not interested in the IS original, but he requires only the addition of his non-canon Clan version. When it suits him, BattleTech canon goes out of the window, no matter what his userbar says. Check it here: New Mech:templar

2) In the same thread then he added that the Inner Sphere should be given no further OmniMechs:

KursedVixen, on 07 July 2025 - 04:03 AM, said:

and the inner sphere doesn't need more omnimechs either....

3) And today he comes up with his logical conclusion in this thread: Clan players (read: him) should get freely customizable OmniMechs, while the Inner Sphere would get shafted.

Because this suits him, suddenly he asks for the full canon approach to OmniMechs:
"So why can't we get actual omnimechs without hardpoints? Fixed equipment is cannon but not hardpoints on omnis!"

This is his idea of "a fun, balanced game." Everything to the Clan players like him, nothing to the IS players.

[BlueDevilspawn]

Funnily, I thought MW5 Clans was already quite the power fantasy. FWIW, it's possible to beat Trueborn difficulty with stock mechs. No need for ERML stacking like MW2, I think we're beyond that.

[Duke Falcon]

True omnis? Yeah, if you want to instakill MWO, I guess...
Noone wants a game where a 35tons light omni able to eviscerate a 100tons Atlas without got hit then go to pee while the flames burn a fancy bonfire all over the place...

No. Just no.

Current omni implementation may not perfect, not canon, but closest to balance. While I like the TT BT I think a multiplayer version may better be balanced between the factions. Single player games? MW5 Clans - I tried that - is essentially a smiling "bye-bye spheroid" shooter. Sometimes you not need your starmates.
As BlueDevilspawn said, it beatable on hardest. I am not an outstanding player (check Jarl if you wanna cry) but even I found MW5 Clans easy.

If you really want canonical omnitech then whole MWO must be revamped (bye-bye QP!). No mixed tech sides because MM (oh, no, MM again!) must drop 12 IS players against 10 clanners (16 vs 10 would be balanced here) and clanners would still win (if not a bunch of I-di-oh-ts).

More IS omnis on the other side would be nice. Sure would refresh FP experience.
Don't get me wrong, Vixen, I like the clans to. But I like to play MWO time-to-time to. Not wish it die any time soooooon...

[The6thMessenger]

Therax, on 08 July 2025 - 03:09 AM, said:

Part of the answer is that it would be much more difficult to visually model weapons onto mechs that do not require hardpoints for weapon mounting.

Part of the answer is that it hardpoints are included in the games for gameplay balance and diversification.

Tiy0s, on 08 July 2025 - 06:30 AM, said:

A common response to that is bringing up how you could swap a heavy gauss for 5 machine guns in MW4 Mercs. If MW4 could do it, why can't we? The difference there is that MW4 did not model their mech weapons, MW4 had static mech geometry that didn't change regardless of what you did to the mech. With the PGI mech models, that is not the case.

So, saying "it just takes more work, so we didn’t do it" doesn’t exactly inspire confidence—it kind of reads like they didn’t even try smarter ways to pull it off.

From what I’ve seen messing around with Unreal Editor (before my hard drive gave up on life), the weapon hardpoints on mechs are super bespoke—custom-fit to each spot like puzzle pieces, and where they technically attach is at the origin with the mesh body itself just nudged to where it's supposed to be. From the standpoint of modularity, that's not good.

Now, coming from my FO4 modding background—making guns with snap-on parts—I think there’s a better way. In Fallout, meshes (NIFs) are edited in Nifskope, and they’ve got snap-points built right into the body, so parts just mate together, even if not cleanly. That’s what modular should feel like.

What PGI could have done is set fixed snap-points on mech bodies—just predetermined spots where weapons would naturally snap into place. Then instead of forcing the weapon to match each mech’s geometry, you use an intermediary mesh—kind of like that ring on Urbie’s arm when it’s got a cannon

Edited by The6thMessenger, 08 July 2025 - 08:19 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 08 July 2025 - 08:09 PM, said:

So, saying "it just takes more work, so we didn’t do it" doesn’t exactly inspire confidence—it kind of reads like they didn’t even try smarter ways to pull it off.

From what I’ve seen messing around with Unreal Editor (before my hard drive gave up on life), the weapon hardpoints on mechs are super bespoke—custom-fit to each spot like puzzle pieces, and where they technically attach is at the origin with the mesh body itself just nudged to where it's supposed to be. From the standpoint of modularity, that's not good.

Now, coming from my FO4 modding background—making guns with snap-on parts—I think there’s a better way. In Fallout, meshes (NIFs) are edited in Nifskope, and they’ve got snap-points built right into the body, so parts just mate together, even if not cleanly. That’s what modular should feel like.

What PGI could have done is set fixed snap-points on mech bodies—just predetermined spots where weapons would naturally snap into place. Then instead of forcing the weapon to match each mech’s geometry, you use an intermediary mesh—kind of like that ring on Urbie’s arm when it’s got a cannon

Even if they did make it "snap-on", each different weapon model and its positioning has to be accounted for which is the actual problem. The problem isn't that they don't "snap-on" it's that all possibilities then have to be accounted for and they also don't even always look good.

The crux of the issue is that by using dynamic geometry like that, regardless of what you do, it creates artificial barriers to adding new hardpoints, adding weapons, or just balance adjustments in general. Which is why I still kinda prefer static geometry even if it doesn't necessarily match up with what you run in it. As funny as the doomfist Victor was, it kinda shows a reason to NOT actually bother showing every weapon distinctly with dynamic geometry and instead just treat the mechlab and the weapon placement more as an abstraction, there isn't a "big" red laser weapon so treating multiple instances of it as a single weapon in a section doesn't seem too far fetched IMO.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 July 2025 - 08:51 PM, said:

Even if they did make it "snap-on", each different weapon model and its positioning has to be accounted for which is the actual problem. The problem isn't that they don't "snap-on" it's that all possibilities then have to be accounted for and they also don't even always look good.

You just repeated yourself. In addition, they already do account for the positioning, and in fact that is what they do when they move the actual geometry, instead of moving the point where it snaps on, as in the origin.

And as I have pointed out, the mech, much like the Urbie's rings, would be an intermediary between the weapon hardpoint, that is precisely used to adapt the weapon into the mech's body. Of course that's not universal, but the idea is that the weapon would be universal and it's way of attaching to the body being much more adaptive, would be less work.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 July 2025 - 08:51 PM, said:

it creates artificial barriers to adding new hardpoints, adding weapons, or just balance adjustments in general.

Artificial barriers like what? You'd had more point if you actually listed them, you'd have better point.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 July 2025 - 08:51 PM, said:

Which is why I still kinda prefer static geometry even if it doesn't necessarily match up with what you run in it. As funny as the doomfist Victor was, it kinda shows a reason to NOT actually bother showing every weapon distinctly with dynamic geometry and instead just treat the mechlab and the weapon placement more as an abstraction, there isn't a "big" red laser weapon so treating multiple instances of it as a single weapon in a section doesn't seem too far fetched IMO.

You mean go exactly against the philosophy put forth? I mean yes ok, sure fine. Would work with the MW4 styled sized hardpoints anyways, which always had been the best implementation for me.

But you're not actually tackling the problem, you're just derailing the conversation. The point is to implement their vision of different prefabs with respect to weapons, solving the work issue -- and your response is to "just not work at all".

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 08 July 2025 - 10:33 PM, said:

You just repeated yourself. In addition, they already do account for the positioning, and in fact that is what they do when they move the actual geometry, instead of moving the point where it snaps on, as in the origin.

And as I have pointed out, the mech, much like the Urbie's rings, would be an intermediary between the weapon hardpoint, that is precisely used to adapt the weapon into the mech's body. Of course that's not universal, but the idea is that the weapon would be universal and it's way of attaching to the body being much more adaptive, would be less work.

Again, you're still making an assumption about what is time consuming and hard about all of this, and presupposing that some idea would magically make this less trivial/tedious than it is. It may be more streamlined but now all of this needs to be done upfront rather than potentially delayed, and some mechs would end up abominations not unlike some of the latest coming out of the hardpoint inflation we've been getting (or dealing with hitbox bloat as well).

The6thMessenger, on 08 July 2025 - 10:33 PM, said:

But you're not actually tackling the problem, you're just derailing the conversation. The point is to implement their vision of different prefabs with respect to weapons, solving the work issue -- and your response is to "just not work at all".

All things come down to RoI, and dynamic geometry while a cool touch creates a bunch of constraints and a lot of effort for little gain (it can also look horrendous, I mean the Centurion gun arm, Catapult VCRs, and Awesome tiny PPC barrels were a serious sour spot for a long time after dynamic geometry became a thing). So yes, the answer to all of these problems would've been to never do dynamic geometry in the first place. So no, it's not derailing this conversation, go be self-righteous elsewhere.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 08 July 2025 - 11:11 PM.

[KursedVixen]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 July 2025 - 11:06 PM, said:

Again, you're still making an assumption about what is time consuming and hard about all of this, and presupposing that some idea would magically make this less trivial/tedious than it is. It may be more streamlined but now all of this needs to be done upfront rather than potentially delayed, and some mechs would end up abominations not unlike some of the latest coming out of the hardpoint inflation we've been getting (or dealing with hitbox bloat as well).


All things come down to RoI, and dynamic geometry while a cool touch creates a bunch of constraints and a lot of effort for little gain (it can also look horrendous, I mean the Centurion gun arm, Catapult VCRs, and Awesome tiny PPC barrels were a serious sour spot for a long time after dynamic geometry became a thing). So yes, the answer to all of these problems would've been to never do dynamic geometry in the first place. So no, it's not derailing this conversation, go be self-righteous elsewhere.

i don't think you have one clue to how modeling works once the intial model work is done it can easily be reused, it's not like they have to make the model of the gun barrel every single time it's used on a new mech or locatioin it's as simple as a line of code that says this model goes here, Full omnimechs while totally unfair in MWo could easily have been done IN MW5 with little problems for balance since there is to my knowledge no PVP play. I can prove this with a model of the timberwolf in Garry's mod which i personally edited, each weapon 'module' per say has a specific position it can appear at on the timberwolf mech in gmod since all the coding for it is already done it's as simple as flipping a switch to put a weapon on the arm, I went into blender myself to change some things about the model and yeah i changed the geometry easily so saying weapon placement is hard is a false argument the same can be done with bolt ons as long as there are placements coded in already it's as simple as saying "This model" goes here." in a line of code.

Edited by KursedVixen, 09 July 2025 - 01:17 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 July 2025 - 11:06 PM, said:

Again, you're still making an assumption about what is time consuming and hard about all of this, and presupposing that some idea would magically make this less trivial/tedious than it is.

Well, my Assumption is a lot more grounded, and is based on a practical application as seen everywhere. It's even the very equipment system on existing games where swords are bound to NPC hands -- that snap on.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 July 2025 - 11:06 PM, said:

It may be more streamlined but now all of this needs to be done upfront rather than potentially delayed, and some mechs would end up abominations not unlike some of the latest coming out of the hardpoint inflation we've been getting (or dealing with hitbox bloat as well).

May? So you don't know.

Abominations in what sense? Just because you don't like it? It just enables hardpoint inflation?

Cauldron will inflate it anyhow. What this just achieves is a proper way of doing weapon prefabs on a mech. Implementation is up to them. If you don't like it, that's fine, but you don't exactly have a point against the system here.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 July 2025 - 11:06 PM, said:

So yes, the answer to all of these problems would've been to never do dynamic geometry in the first place.

Agree to disagree.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 July 2025 - 11:06 PM, said:

So no, it's not derailing this conversation, go be self-righteous elsewhere.

That's funny, considering that you're trying to end the conversation, instead of contributing to it. So maybe you're the one who should be someplace else if you don't want this conversation, instead of blocking it for everybody else.

KursedVixen, on 09 July 2025 - 01:14 AM, said:

a line of code that says this model goes here

I don't disagree with your assessment, but reducing this to "line of code", seems to me a massive red-flag.

KursedVixen, on 09 July 2025 - 01:14 AM, said:

so saying weapon placement is hard is a false argument the same can be done with bolt ons

True, but the problem is the amount of work to be had, and I take it PGI is allergic to it has manpower allocated elsewhere.

[KursedVixen]

The6thMessenger, on 09 July 2025 - 01:30 AM, said:

I don't disagree with your assessment, but reducing this to "line of code", seems to me a massive red-flag.


True, but the problem is the amount of work to be had, and I take it PGI is allergic to it has manpower allocated elsewhere.

it literally is a line of code that says 'this weapon' attaches to this spot. i dunno how the current engine does it exactly, but i know that it's simply a line of code for say the left arm in this case say it has a single energy hardpoint, well you can attach any one of the lasers or a ppc, i dunno if the ppc model varies depending on which ppc your using but it's something as simple as "Left arm hardpoint:PPC" in the code of course it's probably a little more complicated than that, but as long as the coder knows what the code name of the PPC is, and is on the right line for that mechs left arm, it's as simple as copy pasting the code that links to the ppc model in that slot.

If the mech is already created it's hardly any work to change a line of code or some text in that line... unless whoever wrote the code poorly commented it, but then it'd be hard for everyone.

Edited by KursedVixen, 09 July 2025 - 02:13 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

KursedVixen, on 09 July 2025 - 02:06 AM, said:

it literally is a line of code that says 'this weapon' attaches to this spot. i dunno how the current engine does it exactly, but i know that it's simply a line of code for say the left arm in this case say it has a single energy hardpoint, well you can attach any one of the lasers or a ppc, i dunno if the ppc model varies depending on which ppc your using but it's something as simple as "Left arm hardpoint:PPC" in the code of course it's probably a little more complicated than that, but as long as the coder knows what the code name of the PPC is, and is on the right line for that mechs left arm, it's as simple as copy pasting the code that links to the ppc model in that slot.

If the mech is already created it's hardly any work to change a line of code or some text in that line... unless whoever wrote the code poorly commented it, but then it'd be hard for everyone.

Hmm.

I used UE. It's object-oriented. I'm not familiar implementation-wise, but I wouldn't reduce it to "line of code".

Dude I know in the modding scene, dead-raiser is trying to give the Urbie a missile-arm from the Catapult. Might work.

[KursedVixen]

The6thMessenger, on 09 July 2025 - 03:46 AM, said:

Hmm.

I used UE. It's object-oriented. I'm not familiar implementation-wise, but I wouldn't reduce it to "line of code".

Dude I know in the modding scene, dead-raiser is trying to give the Urbie a missile-arm from the Catapult. Might work.

that will look odd,

anyway i'm a bit of a programmer so it is a line of code or 2.. i've edited Garry's mod models specifically of example i added weapon options to the ported Timberwolf model that were not oringally avalible the hardest part was i had to learn a little bit of blender, but after saving the model file of the relocated weapon module model to the correct place it was as simple as adding the file name to a line of code in the xml file. I imagine it wouldn't be too much harder on UE.or cryengine.

I don't think the modeling is the problem it's putting the work in to allow the player to insert whatever weapon they want into place implimenting that could take some work depending on how they have it setup...

Edited by KursedVixen, 09 July 2025 - 05:14 AM.

[Tiy0s]

The6thMessenger, on 08 July 2025 - 08:09 PM, said:

So, saying "it just takes more work, so we didn’t do it" doesn’t exactly inspire confidence—it kind of reads like they didn’t even try smarter ways to pull it off.

From what I’ve seen messing around with Unreal Editor (before my hard drive gave up on life), the weapon hardpoints on mechs are super bespoke—custom-fit to each spot like puzzle pieces, and where they technically attach is at the origin with the mesh body itself just nudged to where it's supposed to be. From the standpoint of modularity, that's not good.

Now, coming from my FO4 modding background—making guns with snap-on parts—I think there’s a better way. In Fallout, meshes (NIFs) are edited in Nifskope, and they’ve got snap-points built right into the body, so parts just mate together, even if not cleanly. That’s what modular should feel like.

What PGI could have done is set fixed snap-points on mech bodies—just predetermined spots where weapons would naturally snap into place. Then instead of forcing the weapon to match each mech’s geometry, you use an intermediary mesh—kind of like that ring on Urbie’s arm when it’s got a cannon

There’s a difference between more work and an unreasonable or unrealistic amount of work. Mechs are my job, I’ve tried this before and it doesn’t turn out pretty in 95% of cases.

Attatchment sockets could work in some cases, but they would not look good. Which is another point I outlined in my initial post. As you’re someone who says they come from a modding community, mods for things like this focus on functionality but not form(this isn’t always true of course, I’ve seen some mods in games that rival or exceed the work of the original dev. But they are few and far in between, usually one out of thousands). They usually aren’t concerned if things look janky as long as they fit the desired power fantasy. Sockets that are welded on to the mech simply wouldn’t achieve the level of quality and fidelity we strive for in our mech models. On some mechs they would be barely passable, on some mechs they would be downright egregious.

The same line of thinking is true with the Urbanmech arm mod mentioned in this thread. Most mods only care about functionality and that is the major difference between modding and actual game developers pushing a polished title. The devs strive for(not always achieve) a final product where everything looks like it belongs. Welding 10 medium lasers to the right torso of a timber wolf does not look like it belongs and it does not have the same visual fidelity as the other timber wolf models.

It’s nice to see people like this thread who are so passionate about Mechwarrior and what they want to see from it. But threads like this are a clear example of fans(even most modders) not understanding the full implications of what they ask for. There’s nothing wrong with that, they don’t have to work under the hood in the design of the game so they may not have the experience. Just like there’s nothing wrong with me having only surface level coding knowledge about our game because I’m a technical artist. But it sometimes blinds them to the full set of circumstances that prevent what they’re asking for. Even if they’ve worked on a mod or two or consider themselves “a bit of a programmer.”

[The6thMessenger]

KursedVixen, on 09 July 2025 - 05:07 AM, said:

that will look odd,

Would look awesome to me. Closest to this monstrosity:

Spoiler

KursedVixen, on 09 July 2025 - 05:07 AM, said:

I don't think the modeling is the problem it's putting the work in to allow the player to insert whatever weapon they want into place implimenting that could take some work depending on how they have it setup...

I kind of agree somewhat. But I'm a hobbyist with a lot of time on my hands to do these -- there's a fair bit of consideration, because the guys at PGI aren't, and if they are working on this, then they aren't working on something else they could have been -- say the new DLC. I'd chastize them for not wanting to do the work, but at the very least I won't hold it against them if it's not possible given the constraints.

Tiy0s, on 09 July 2025 - 06:49 AM, said:

There’s a difference between more work and an unreasonable or unrealistic amount of work.

Fair enough, but the point was, having this system of making weapon prefabs reduces it. I look at the Mauler for example, the UAC5 has this square mount to mate with the body -- maybe said mount could be retained, but the weapon prefab could be different.

And on an unrelated note, voila!

Spoiler

Look at this magnificence. That's UAC5s from the Mauler mount, put on the Battlemaster.

Tiy0s, on 09 July 2025 - 06:49 AM, said:

As you’re someone who says they come from a modding community, mods for things like this focus on functionality but not form(this isn’t always true of course, I’ve seen some mods in games that rival or exceed the work of the original dev. But they are few and far in between, usually one out of thousands). They usually aren’t concerned if things look janky as long as they fit the desired power fantasy. Sockets that are welded on to the mech simply wouldn’t achieve the level of quality and fidelity we strive for in our mech models. On some mechs they would be barely passable, on some mechs they would be downright egregious.

The same line of thinking is true with the Urbanmech arm mod mentioned in this thread. Most mods only care about functionality and that is the major difference between modding and actual game developers pushing a polished title. The devs strive for(not always achieve) a final product where everything looks like it belongs.

Well I used to kitbash before, and they kind of work for the reason that they at least fit within the game because it's just recycling some parts. Some of my contemporaries are amazing at this, just look at what Micalov did:

Spoiler

So, I'd say that the concern of prioritizing form over function is unwarranted, given that both could be done -- and you're kind of dissing the people I worked with. Likewise I learned how to use blender, and I was able to make my own guns from scratch:

Spoiler

And I pretty much considered form and function.

Also, the FO4 modding scene is kind of fractured between Gun-Snubs chasing after COD-Slops, kitbashers, and purists chasing after old designs like FNV or older, and then there's Dak that tries to balance between perspective.

Point is, depends on the environment for the sake of consistency -- and the point of modding is game is tweaked to what users want, and so if the rest of their kit is this hyper-realistic mods, then the equally over-produced COD-Slop would fit.

Personally, I'm not that bothered by some odd inconsistencies if it means functionality, for the reason ultimately is that, it's a game.

But I suppose that also means that, it's up to your standards since you people work on it. I was just thinking, maybe there's other ways it can be done, and some sacrifices can be made for more expedient attempts, on an already receptive customers.

Tiy0s, on 09 July 2025 - 06:49 AM, said:

Welding 10 medium lasers to the right torso of a timber wolf does not look like it belongs and it does not have the same visual fidelity as the other timber wolf models.

That's not really what I am advocating tho -- KV's do-everything omni-mech is bonkers and a nightmare to balance.

What I look for really is the sized hardpoint of the MW4 Mercs, where something like 1 AC20 with 3 slots can instead fit 3 machine guns with 1 slot in it's place -- would certainly make better sense. And the system I think best for that is an adaptive one.

Tiy0s, on 09 July 2025 - 06:49 AM, said:

But threads like this are a clear example of fans(even most modders) not understanding the full implications of what they ask for.

Result, or what it takes to do so?

Personally, I'm fine with the result. It functions, that's all I ask. I'd welcome a catapult arm on my Urbie.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 July 2025 - 03:31 PM.

[BlueDevilspawn]

Form vs. function will always be a subjective debate. Regardless, it seems that as the official devs, PGI's stance is that just prioritizing function at the expense of looking jank is not acceptable and I understand their view as the official devs. Modders have the luxury of choosing as well as just saying "this is it".

That said, your second point can't be overstated enough. MWO has part of a single dev's time. Most resources are focused on MW5 and especially Clans. That reality and the constraints it puts on resources/time in MWO is a limit that must be acknowledged.

The6thMessenger, on 09 July 2025 - 07:51 AM, said:

Would look awesome to me. Closest to this monstrosity:

Spoiler

I kind of agree somewhat. But I'm a hobbyist with a lot of time on my hands to do these -- there's a fair bit of consideration, because the guys at PGI aren't, and if they are working on this, then they aren't working on something else they could have been -- say the new DLC. I'd chastize them for not wanting to do the work, but at the very least I won't hold it against them if it's not possible given the constraints.



Fair enough, but the point was, having this system of making weapon prefabs reduces it. I look at the Mauler for example, the UAC5 has this square mount to mate with the body -- maybe said mount could be retained, but the weapon prefab could be different.

And on an unrelated note, voila!

Spoiler

Look at this magnificence. That's UAC5s from the Mauler mount, put on the Battlemaster.

Well I used to kitbash before, and they kind of work for the reason that they at least fit within the game because it's just recycling some parts. Some of my contemporaries are amazing at this, just look at what Micalov did:

Spoiler

So, I'd say that the concern of prioritizing form over function is unwarranted, given that both could be done -- and you're kind of dissing the people I worked it. Likewise I learned how to use blender, and I was able to make my own guns from scratch:

Spoiler

And I pretty much considered form and function.

Also, the FO4 modding scene is kind of fractured between Gun-Snubs chasing after COD-Slops, kitbashers, and purists chasing after old designs like FNV or older, and then there's Dak that tries to balance between perspective.

Point is, depends on the environment for the sake of consistency -- and the point of modding is game is tweaked to what users want, and so if the rest of their kit is this hyper-realistic mods, then the equally over-produced COD-Slop would fit.

Personally, I'm not that bothered by some odd inconsistencies if it means functionality, for the reason ultimately is that, it's a game.

But I suppose that also means that, it's up to your standards since you people work on it. I was just thinking, maybe there's other ways it can be done, and some sacrifices can be made for more expedient attempts, on an already receptive customers.



That's not really what I am advocating tho -- KV's do-everything omni-mech is bonkers and a nightmare to balance.

What I look for really is the sized hardpoint of the MW4 Mercs, where something like 1 AC20 with 3 slots can instead fit 3 machine guns with 1 slot in it's place -- would certainly make better sense. And the system I think best for that is an adaptive one.



Result, or what it takes to do so?

Personally, I'm fine with the result. It functions, that's all I ask. I'd welcome a catapult arm on my Urbie.