181 replies to this topic

[Moriquendi86]

Tennex, on 20 April 2015 - 01:45 PM, said:

Thanks for posting!! I'm glad the art department cares about the player feedback! And Dennis always very kind and patient towards the players.

But i think that the ortho/modeling stage is too late to make any geometry changes for the sake of balance. IMO those should be made during the concept phase. Or left to the quirk guys.

Here are my reasons:

1. The concept art always looks good because alex has proportions in mind when making aesthetically beautiful mech. I don't know if you believe in this but: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Golden_ratio, http://en.wikipedia....ibonacci_number (this is just a mathematical number, but i do believe that subconsciously something like this lets society gravitate towards what we collectively deem as beautiful). Alex, or any artist whether they know it or not, produces art with a similar subconscious drive. This is the same reason some people are against the tiny Catapult PPCs and Jaegermech guns, because it ruins the proportions created by the artist.

2. Concept art is publicized on the buy mech page, and advertized as such. Player expectations(as well as purchases) are set by what they see from that stage, and it shouldn't be suprising when an aesthetically pleasing mech on concept becomes one that is not that some players may be dissapointed.

3. By making needed changes at the concept phase, you can have the best of both worlds between balance and aesthetics. The concept artist can produce a mech that is both aesthetically pleasing and balanced. Plus there won't be a perceived bait and switch if the concept you show the players are already balance proof'd and no changes need occur between the concept and 3d model.

While you are not completely wrong not everything can be predicted on concept stage I believe. Often you have to start modeling or animate to see if it works or not. Even more often you have to put something playable in to the game and test it in motion and real game to see how it behaves. And yes concept stage can be improved as more and more experience is gained by the team and predictions will become more accurate at this point how it will end up in the game but probably never 100% accurate and if you experiment with new form or shape your past experience doesn't always apply.

Therefore concepts will forever remain just that concepts not an actual thing.

[Jin Ma]

Moriquendi86, on 20 April 2015 - 02:46 PM, said:

While you are not completely wrong not everything can be predicted on concept stage I believe. Often you have to start modeling or animate to see if it works or not. Even more often you have to put something playable in to the game and test it in motion and real game to see how it behaves. And yes concept stage can be improved as more and more experience is gained by the team and predictions will become more accurate at this point how it will end up in the game but probably never 100% accurate and if you experiment with new form or shape your past experience doesn't always apply.

Therefore concepts will forever remain just that concepts not an actual thing.

Sure for mechanical clipping or somethign like that

But for changing geometry for balance reasons (which are inherently unpredictable) when they can be fixed anyway with quirks?

[Kamikaze Viking]

Cion, on 20 April 2015 - 02:12 PM, said:

Russ on Twitter:

Russ Bullock @russ_bullock · 30m 30 minutes ago
Regarding the Ebon Jaguar work in progress - what you saw was just the T-pose, today I saw frames of the animation - much more squat
Russ Bullock @russ_bullock · 33m 33 minutes ago

I suspected as much with the 'T-pose'

Well this thread looks to be over. We have gotten the exact responses that we wanted.

Thankyou Dennis & Russ. And Tarogato for starting this discussion. And anyone who participated in an intelligent and informed way.

[Tarogato]

Dennis de Koning, on 20 April 2015 - 11:57 AM, said:

<yummy stuff>

Fantastic post! Thanks for all the clarity and stopping by to share some information and clear up some misconceptions.

When we got to see the WIP model of the King Crab, it was posed properly, as seemed the Urbanmech as well. I think this is what led us to expect that what we saw of the EBJ was a fairly accurate representation of what the final stature of the mech would be. A few people assumed it was indeed the T-pose, but most of us weren't convinced, mostly because past mechs like the MDD and TBR ended up with less bent legs than we would have liked.

I'm glad to hear that what we saw was the T-pose and that the final version will be closer to what everybody expected/wants it to be - it's really fantastic news, and thanks again for listening to feedback and willingness to revise, it really means a lot!

---

We do throw Alex's name around a lot... it would be nice to know who else is involved in the concepting and developing of new mechs and revising of past mechs. I can't find a "Credits" list anywhere on the site, so it leads to more things like this:

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 20 April 2015 - 02:17 PM, said:

There are more artists?

Would love to be able to give more credit where credit is due.

[CHH Badkarma]

Well at this point it is marketed straight at paying players. That being said, mod one as asked, animate it and post the two side by side for a pole. Said pole available to those who bankroled pgi with preorders. Non payers will cry perhaps, but it is kinda like voting, if you dont vote, dont complain

Edited by CHH Badkarma, 20 April 2015 - 05:28 PM.

[TheMadTypist]

Woo for crab-like stance! Crab is one of the better animated 'mechs, imo.

I'm also pleased that UAC20 is mounted in the upper part of the hull- high mounted direct fire hardpoint!

[Rina Fujimoto]

Dennis de Koning, on 20 April 2015 - 11:57 AM, said:

Wow, lots of feedback here.
Some of you are happy and don’t desire any changes; others want changes based on game-play, some based on aesthetics and a few are a little ambiguous.
First let me start with the issue of posting WIP. The pose of the Cauldron Born in question here is a pre-rigged T-pose. The rigged (resting) pose is far squatter and somewhat resembles the King Crab in its animation. So, in way, this thread is based on misinformation.
This does not invalidate it though.
Regarding geo modification, there are many things to consider here. We have to take hit boxes into consideration as well as animation. Hitbox adjustment is something that’s always a subject of contention and we’ve made many adjustments on almost all platforms (and will continue to do so). We try to mitigate these issues at the concept stage by finding a compromise between aesthetics and game-play, and continue tweaking well into modelling. When it comes to animating a ‘Mech, a sense of weight, balance, inertia; realism in general, is a priority. A wide legged stance for example would animate poorly, looking like a waddle, and if a constant centering of mass was applied (on cross-over), it would cause a drastic side-to-side motion that would look odd and unstable. This is one of the reasons every ‘Mech has a waist; it’s not just to accommodate torso-twist. Many of the original designs are fused at the waist which gives them a very squat appearance and would animate very poorly [if not impossibly]. The lower [or squatter] the ‘Mechs stance, the more chance of (leg) geo collision at cross-over as well, particularly with chicken-walker ‘Mechs.
One thing we are not (here in the Art Department) is polar. We do not sit absolutely left or absolutely right on anything. There is no ‘this-or-that’ attitude. We are in constantly looking for the sweet spot: the perfect grey area where aesthetics and game-play are balanced. No matter what though, we can’t please everyone, especially those who ARE polar. This is not meant as an insult to anyone’s opinion in any way. I get it, some want a ‘Mech that performs ‘perfectly’, others want a ‘Mech that looks beautiful. Some would gladly sacrifice appearance, immersion and reality for game-play; and others thirst for aesthetics, immersion and suspension of belief. We want it all; but know that’s impossible. Sacrifices, trade-offs, compromises must be made, and there’s so much complexity in the art and design of MWO that perfection can only be pursued, as achieving it is purely subjective.
It seems most of you are pretty intelligent and are understanding of these points as the well-roundedness of this conversation illustrates. We do listen, read and consider everything we can. Many changes and modifications have been made as a direct result of your feedback and many are in the works. So please, keep the feedback coming; be nice though, we artists are sensitive.
Although passion is a great reason for being rude, it’s a horrible excuse.

Yes. THANK YOU for this post. [Redacted]

In tabletop I can have my crappy bt design look as bad as I want because it's just an inanimate miniature.

This is a video game, where the expectations are that the mech is animated and looks realistic and proper while in movement, with all the physics behind it.

The classic battletech designs are thrown out the window because they're awful, not realistic at all and completely terrible in practice and realism.

[Knight Magus]

Ed Steele, on 20 April 2015 - 12:47 AM, said:

In Battletech, mechs that did not have torsos, were only able to turn their facing while they were moving. The advantages were that less critical slots were taken up by actuators, leaving more room for other equipment (hence the ridiculous amount of pod space the Cauldron Born has), as well as the advantage of having a lower profile. The obvious disadvantage was that a mech without a torso could not change its facing when it was not moving.

I'm going over all the old manuals and I can't find anything stating that these mechs could not torso twist - looking at the old record sheets - doesn't appear to have any missing equipment. The actuators on the mech are the hand, lower arm, upper arm, foot, upper leg, lower leg which doesn't have anything to do with torso twisting. I do remember an optional rule that a mech can flip its arms in reverse if they didn't have a lower arm actuator and quad mechs could side step. The Cauldron Born has 30 tons of pod space and the Loki has 28.5 - difference being the CB has endo-steel/Ferro.

Can anyone point out a source that indicates otherwise? I can't even find any info on how to damage a mech in a way that it can't torso twist which leads to the question was torso twisting tied to the gyro or the engine or both?

Edited by Knight Magus, 20 April 2015 - 06:11 PM.

[Ragtag soldier]

Knight Magus, on 20 April 2015 - 06:07 PM, said:

I'm going over all the old manuals and I can't find anything stating that these mechs could not torso twist - looking at the old record sheets - doesn't appear to have any missing equipment. The actuators on the mech are the hand, lower arm, upper arm, foot, upper leg, lower leg which doesn't have anything to do with torso twisting. I do remember an optional rule that a mech can flip its arms in reverse if they didn't have a lower arm actuator and quad mechs could side step. The Cauldron Born has 30 tons of pod space and the Loki has 28.5 - difference being the CB has endo-steel/Ferro.

Can anyone point out a source that indicates otherwise? I can't even find any info on how to damage a mech in a way that it can't torso twist which leads to the question was torso twisting tied to the gyro or the engine or both?

i'm pretty sure they have a quirk for no torso twisting in the full rules, but it's one of the optional ones. mechanically, the torso twisting is tied to the model of the mech. so a nova not being able to twist is because it was built as a nova, and not a hellbringer.

[Otto Cannon]

It was nice to see such a great official response to the thread for a change!

I think it benefits both sides, since not only does it condense speculation into facts for us but players will tend to be much more polite and considerate when they know their post is likely to actually be read rather than being just a frustrated shout into the void.

[Knight Magus]

Ragtag soldier, on 20 April 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

i'm pretty sure they have a quirk for no torso twisting in the full rules, but it's one of the optional ones. mechanically, the torso twisting is tied to the model of the mech. so a nova not being able to twist is because it was built as a nova, and not a hellbringer.

I've checked the 4th edition Rulebook, Maximun Tech, The Battletech Compendium, Rules of Warfare, Battletech Master Rules, and the Technical Readouts for the mechs and still nothing. Can you please site the source. It's driving me batty.

Edited by Knight Magus, 20 April 2015 - 06:41 PM.

[Brody319]

I think it looks fine.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Knight Magus, on 20 April 2015 - 06:41 PM, said:

I've checked the 4th edition Rulebook, Maximun Tech, The Battletech Compendium, Rules of Warfare, Battletech Master Rules, and the Technical Readouts for the mechs and still nothing. Can you please site the source. It's driving me batty.

How do mechs that dont have a waist do it?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Linebacker



for instance

[Moriquendi86]

Jin Ma, on 20 April 2015 - 03:11 PM, said:

Sure for mechanical clipping or somethign like that

But for changing geometry for balance reasons (which are inherently unpredictable) when they can be fixed anyway with quirks?

I doubt that quirks are so magical that can solve every problem. You can't fix silly animation problem with quirks, you can't make weapons shoot trough rocks if you'll learn that weapon pods are frustratingly too low.

[Knight Magus]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 20 April 2015 - 09:38 PM, said:

How do mechs that dont have a waist do it?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Linebacker



for instance

Well, for starters there is no waist component on a mech unless were giving that role to the gyro - a piece of equipment that is on every mech - it's not like PGI will create a system where half of the gyro slots are removed to mimic a missing feature but then again there are other methods that could twist the mech. For example: the knee joints can be made to swivel and the side of legs next to torso could be capable of moving forward/behind its current rest position.

Edited by Knight Magus, 20 April 2015 - 10:30 PM.

[Serpieri]

Knight Magus, on 20 April 2015 - 06:07 PM, said:

I'm going over all the old manuals and I can't find anything stating that these mechs could not torso twist - looking at the old record sheets - doesn't appear to have any missing equipment. The actuators on the mech are the hand, lower arm, upper arm, foot, upper leg, lower leg which doesn't have anything to do with torso twisting. I do remember an optional rule that a mech can flip its arms in reverse if they didn't have a lower arm actuator and quad mechs could side step. The Cauldron Born has 30 tons of pod space and the Loki has 28.5 - difference being the CB has endo-steel/Ferro.

Can anyone point out a source that indicates otherwise? I can't even find any info on how to damage a mech in a way that it can't torso twist which leads to the question was torso twisting tied to the gyro or the engine or both?

There is no such rule - regardless of art all mechs can torso twist.

[Molossian Dog]

Just look at it. At its shilhouette (spelling), its hardpoint placement, its movement profile. Run the numbers.

It will be strong. Probably even OP from the get go.
Just like the Hankyu.

PGI will throw you clan whiners a bone. I salute your forum agenda.
You can quit whining now. At least for a couple of weeks. kkthxbai

Edited by Molossian Dog, 21 April 2015 - 01:49 AM.

[kapusta11]

No offence to PGI but I bet they will address it in the same way they addressed Centurion gun arm, people were complaining mainly about it being a box and only then about the gun itself being too small. The gun remained a box and mechs like Jagermech and Cataphract continued on getting nipplecannons as a part of geometry "normalization" process.

Edited by kapusta11, 21 April 2015 - 01:04 AM.

[Lily from animove]

haruko, on 20 April 2015 - 05:48 PM, said:

The classic battletech designs are thrown out the window because they're awful, not realistic at all and completely terrible in practice and realism.

the same counts for mechs in general, but that does not change the fact that we have a game about mechs.

further, TBR vs KGC, why is the TBR so upright and the KGC not? bth are chicken legged mechs, and the TBR should be closer and more squat to the BT design, because the KGC can do it as well.

So the logical explanation is already counterproofed by those 2 mechs existing by one being totally contrary to that logical explanation while the other goes with that logical explanation.

[Strum Wealh]

Knight Magus, on 20 April 2015 - 06:41 PM, said:

I've checked the 4th edition Rulebook, Maximun Tech, The Battletech Compendium, Rules of Warfare, Battletech Master Rules, and the Technical Readouts for the mechs and still nothing. Can you please site the source. It's driving me batty.

Serpieri, on 20 April 2015 - 10:25 PM, said:

There is no such rule - regardless of art all mechs can torso twist.

Being unable to torso twist is one of the Design Quirks found in Strategic Operations, one of the current (at the time of this post) BT Core Rulebooks.
"Some ’Mech designs, like the Bushwacker, lack the flexibility to twist at the waist (or don’t possess a waist to twist). A ’Mech with this quirk cannot torso twist." - 'No Torso Twist' quirk, found on page 198 of StratOps

There is also an opposing quirk:
"Unlike most ’Mechs, one with this quirk can turn its torso much further. When torso twisting, the ’Mech can change its facing by one or two hex-sides." - 'Extended Torso Twist' quirk, found on page 194 of StratOps

In other words: the most any 'Mech could torso-twist was two hex-sides to either side (for a maximum of 120 to 165 degrees to either side) with the Extended Torso Twist Design Quirk from Strategic Operations; otherwise, 'Mechs were limited to torso-twisting one hex-side to either side (for a maximum of 60 to 90 degrees to either side) or being wholly incapable of torso-twisting (with the No Torso Twist Design Quirk from Strategic Operations).