69 replies to this topic

[Trauglodyte]

PGI did a great job with the art work. And bad plastic models are bad - yikes at the Tbolt doing his GQ pose and the Catapult looking like it is mid-jump. Ooph.

[PropagandaWar]

General Taskeen, on 07 January 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

True story, especially the awesome... Needs revamp.

The original awesome model looks more "awesome," and less toad-like/fatsome.





Too short, center torso is huge, stubby legs (lul whut), and the torso's are less defined/imposing. I don't feel awesome in my awesome. I want an awesome to be awesome .

Sorry I think MWO is actually better than the mini.

[Bishop Steiner]

Navid A1, on 07 January 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

you do know that mechs are not built (specially in the year 3000 onwards) from the same crude steel as your bulldozer.
in fact... that bulldozer would have been much lighter if it was built from carbon fiber, aluminium and other polymers while maintaining all of its rigidness.
you know why the bulldozer is so heavy?... its intentional. that machine MUST be heavy to do its job which is pushing things around, properly... they would have made it over 500T if they could...
mechs must be built as light as possible to maintain agility.

also when i move up from a 35ton raven to a 70ton phract... the scale is not doubled in the process... because the main thing that is upgrading is the engine... and internal power systems which are much denser than the mechs' armor or internal framing.

Nice job missing the whole point.

[Bishop Steiner]

Sayyid, on 07 January 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

The trueth is the mechs are 4 stories tall. This is why a level 1 building is 6m and is about 2 stories in height. Which works out great when you use the average of 10m tall. But I found in research years ago, that an AS7-D Atlas is the tallest battlemech in the game, standing 19.5m tall! The other mechs were pretty short by comparison, it always lead to the joke how does a Commando punch a Atlas in the head, or for that matter how does any mech punch the Atlas in the head.

Yes, I remember either MW3 or MW4 stating that... contrary to all canon source material. The Atlas, in the 3025 TRO, is specifically stated as not being the tallest Mech, and it's depiction of extremely broad shoulders agrees with that, as quite simply 100 tons can be stretched in many ways, but a skinny 100 ton mech will always be taller than a stout one. other mechs, are noted for their height, such as the Victor or the Clan Summoner omnimech, not so much the Atlas. Still and all, I have no issue with the thought of it being tallest. Even went and took all the source stuff available to come up with a composite of MWO heights, CGL "Official Heights", and my own kinda middle of the road approach


in re-scaling, the only 2 that were modified "out of proportion" were the Centurion and Stalker, both of which had additional "trimming" done to make the proportions more.... appeasing. Measured heights didn't not include various antennae or flanges, but to the highest "solid" point on the mech.

PropagandaWar, on 07 January 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Sorry I think MWO is actually better than the mini.

only by about a factor of 10. The old Awesome mini looks like a reject form the original Dr Who show. MWO doesn't always "get it right" IMO< but the Awesome finally feels... awesome.

[CDLord HHGD]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 January 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

Yes, I remember either MW3 or MW4 stating that... contrary to all canon source material. The Atlas, in the 3025 TRO, is specifically stated as not being the tallest Mech, and it's depiction of extremely broad shoulders agrees with that, as quite simply 100 tons can be stretched in many ways, but a skinny 100 ton mech will always be taller than a stout one. other mechs, are noted for their height, such as the Victor or the Clan Summoner omnimech, not so much the Atlas. Still and all, I have no issue with the thought of it being tallest. Even went and took all the source stuff available to come up with a composite of MWO heights, CGL "Official Heights", and my own kinda middle of the road approach

PIC

in re-scaling, the only 2 that were modified "out of proportion" were the Centurion and Stalker, both of which had additional "trimming" done to make the proportions more.... appeasing. Measured heights didn't not include various antennae or flanges, but to the highest "solid" point on the mech.

only by about a factor of 10. The old Awesome mini looks like a reject form the original Dr Who show. MWO doesn't always "get it right" IMO< but the Awesome finally feels... awesome.

One thing that I don't quite understand though. The window of the Commando seems like it's offset like the atlas. There isn't really the room in the COM head to do this like the Atlas, but looking out from the cockpit of a COM supports the right eye view like the Atlas....

[Lanessar]

I personally think that the TRO designs (and minis) look like Go-Bot rejects. But that's just me.

Example:

Edited by Lanessar, 07 January 2013 - 11:34 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

cdlord, on 07 January 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

One thing that I don't quite understand though. The window of the Commando seems like it's offset like the atlas. There isn't really the room in the COM head to do this like the Atlas, but looking out from the cockpit of a COM supports the right eye view like the Atlas....

Agreed, though IDK if the monocle they added was supposed to do that, or just break up the anime look to the head. One thing I have long noticed is that most Mech heads are way too tiny to actually house a person, controls and any reasonable amount of armor, let alone the supposed jumpseat inside for "passengers".

Heck, just look at the 3025 and 3039 illustrations of the Spider, Hatchetman and Cyclops, by Loose, and the person pictured could never fit inside the cockpit shown. *shrugs*

I'm a bit of a scale fanatic though, I admit, and a 66 ft tall Atlas just doesn't fit the scale of Lore, at all.

[CDLord HHGD]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 January 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Agreed, though IDK if the monocle they added was supposed to do that, or just break up the anime look to the head. One thing I have long noticed is that most Mech heads are way too tiny to actually house a person, controls and any reasonable amount of armor, let alone the supposed jumpseat inside for "passengers".

Heck, just look at the 3025 and 3039 illustrations of the Spider, Hatchetman and Cyclops, by Loose, and the person pictured could never fit inside the cockpit shown. *shrugs*

I'm a bit of a scale fanatic though, I admit, and a 66 ft tall Atlas just doesn't fit the scale of Lore, at all.

Being an engineer with the artistic talent of a dull rock, I gravitate to things like scale too. Need me some tech specs!

[PANZERBUNNY]

Many of the trees are WAY bigger than they should be. Some can be giant trees. but it's kind of silly.

[King Arthur IV]

Korm, on 07 January 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

Tabletop scale is a huge mess, and PGI artists did a wonderful work with clarifying it.

i dont think its fair to judge scale on the figurines because they have to be panitable and retain some detail, therefor scale would be out the window.



some reason when i look at an atlas i think of this. problem is this sucker weighs +200 tons and can carry +360 tons.

Edited by King Arthur IV, 07 January 2013 - 06:36 PM.

[Joe Mallad]

I think ALL the designs in this game are 100 % better looking than any past MW designs. On that note, I do believe the Centurion can use a bit of a scaling down in height and the Stalker needs some height added.

[BerryChunks]

PANZERBUNNY, on 07 January 2013 - 03:41 AM, said:

Centurion is larger.

Awesome needs to be SLIGHTLY less like a wide load toad.

Stalker a bit larger.

That's all I can really think of.

Perhaps they want to keep mechs within the "same range" for game reasons instead of logical, lore specific reasons.

PANZERBUNNY, on 07 January 2013 - 03:41 AM, said:

Centurion is larger.

Awesome needs to be SLIGHTLY less like a wide load toad.

Stalker a bit larger.

That's all I can really think of.

Perhaps they want to keep mechs within the "same range" for game reasons instead of logical, lore specific reasons.

PANZERBUNNY, on 07 January 2013 - 03:41 AM, said:

Centurion is larger.

Awesome needs to be SLIGHTLY less like a wide load toad.

Stalker a bit larger.

That's all I can really think of.

Perhaps they want to keep mechs within the "same range" for game reasons instead of logical, lore specific reasons.

what if the Raven was the same size as the atlas, meaning it was just as easy to shoot while being 65 tons lighter? That does not make sense.

Mech scaling is important. It's not about "lore", its about game balance and design flaws.

and you can blame network lag while i was attempting to direct upload a picture from my desktop to a reply message for the spam quotes, because for some reason the ability to create media attachments is hidden, and for some reason lagging causes resent commands.

Edited by BerryChunks, 07 January 2013 - 06:51 PM.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

Just my vent of steam here:

1) using tabletop figures for height and size is a fallacy. The miniatures are abstracted out to roughly the same volume so that a player can see detail, actually paint that detail, and get to enjoy distinguishing one mech from another.

2) I lol at people who think that Mechwarrior somehow has to be modern scifi. As if artistically CBT/MW was always on the cutting edge of science fiction aesthetics. Spoiler alert, it isn't. CBT is basically a future of 80's robot which is just as valid as saying warhammer 40k is space medieval. Both are awesome; but neither one pretends to be an actual forecast of what 'the future' would look like. Sure CBT has more modern scifi elements than 40k, but its design aesthetics never kept with the times and that's ok. It helps give CBT a different look from halo or stereotypical hard-military mecha #598 (which FD has drawn plenty of).

Is some of the TRO art bad? no doubt, is it all bad? not at all. In fact, when cleaned up, TRO art can look fantastic which ironically FD has done previously.

http://flyingdebris....onvoy-179363129

http://flyingdebris....lames-179361662

http://flyingdebris....-mech-179362838

So it left me scratching my head when all the MWO 'redesigns' came out and they all started to run together. Why the different looks, what was wrong with the above examples?

also, look at some non-FD work that follows TRO art more closely like Shimmering-Sword

http://shimmering-sw...%2F131977&qo=58

this guy makes the Vulcan look good - the VULCAN

.

[Malora Sidewinder]

FerretGR, on 07 January 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

It's a personal taste thing for sure... I LOVE the Awesome redesign and think it looks a million times better than the canon version. I think all of PGI's mech designs are spot on, TBH. I was never a fan of many TT designs. I thought they looked silly. The reason I was always a Cat/Cicada/Warhammer/whatever guy back in the day is because most of the humanoid mechs looked silly to me. PGI fixes that for me to a very large degree.

Can't agree more. I think some of the artwork for battlemechs looks downright ridiculous. The models PGI have put forth are nothing short of impressive.

[CrashieJ]

technically, its not how big it is, but what it can hold.

the tonnage of an atlas is 100 tons... it doesn't mean that the atlas IS 100 tons, but it can HOLD UP TO 100 tons of equipment. relative "size" doesnt really matter.

in reality it depends on construction.

[MegaZordTrololo]

I was most disappointed with the scale of the Stalker. I imagined it looming over the battlefield with a much more pronounced nose and skinnier legs. I can barely tell it apart from the Catapult at a glance.

As mentioned by others, this lack of scale between mechs is necessary to keep things balanced. I really hope this trait system that PGI mentioned at some point comes to fruition. Maybe then you could have disadvantageous hitboxes for a particular mech being offset by other advantages like more rapid fire or better cooling.

Everything is just too uniform at the moment; the scale, the types of viable builds, the typically successful strategies for maps.

(Also on the subject of scale, the view from the cockpit feels way off. When I look to the pilots hands then the surrounding terrain, it feels like I'm about a meter from the ground (in an Atlas). The trees and buildings still look odd somehow. They don't add properly to the sense of scale. The scale in that MW:5 proof of concept trailer looked perfect, I'm unsure why MWO doesn't capture the same feeling.

[Dukarriope]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 January 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

A mix media/scale piece Nacon posted in fan art

I want to know how to do this.

[General Taskeen]

PropagandaWar, on 07 January 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Sorry I think MWO is actually better than the mini.

To each there own. Funny that when I posted those comparisons people acted like they've never seen what an in-game Awesome looks compared to the TRO art or the Mini's.

So "sorry," I still think a '60 Chevy Impala is better than the "new," because it has a classic look. I like iconic the looks that were more heavily influenced in some of the MWO 3D models, like the jenner, raven, atlas, and hunchback. I'm used to playing old games too where graphics aren't really a big concern for me, since I still play MW3 and MW4. I don't need instant gratification and frazzle dazzle to impress me like everyone else. Some of the old artwork is just fine, especially the updated ones and many of the Mechs introduced from 3050 and beyond (like the bushwacker and akuma).

(a lot the clan mech artwork that showed up in the 3050 upgrade books are amazing, far better than the drawings found on the CCG cards)
http://www.sarna.net...0U_Masakari.jpg (masakari)
http://www.sarna.net...050U_Dasher.jpg (dasher)

[Cache]

Korm, on 07 January 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

Tabletop scale is a huge mess, and PGI artists did a wonderful work with clarifying it.

Some proofs:

Here's a little info on the new boxed-set plastic minis that may enlighten you as to why they appear how they do. They basically are 4th gen (or higher) copies of the original miniatures, modified slightly halfway through the process. Once approved to do the work, IWM sent me clean casts of minis to be used as masters for the lance packs. These minis were reposed, modified as necessary to allow for one-piece casting (for most), and attached to the shortened hex bases. The now-modified 'masters' then were used to create more masters for the metal minis in the lance packs. Keep in mind that every time a copy used as a master the resulting copies get shorter, thinner, and less detailed.

Some time after the lance packs were released the decision was made to use the same metal sculpts to create the plastic minis for the boxed set. I don't know any of the process there but they are definitely copies of copies of copies of copies. The too-short Catapult was a combination of original sculpt upper torso and re-sculpt legs to get the proportions right, if not the height. This also made it possible to cast in two pieces rather than 4-5, which was a major reason the lance packs were created. At the start of the process the missile pods were square and had holes for missile ports. You can see how it ended.

How do I know this much? Because the lance pack miniatures were my brainchild. I did the modification work on all but one pack. They were intended to be more affordable, zero-to-minimal assembly required, pull them out of the box, paint them, and put them on your hexmap miniatures for beginners. They went over very well at that I can assure you. I must say that I had never dreamed they would be used as masters for plastic minis in the boxed set.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

Cache, on 07 January 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

awesome info

I applaud you, I didnt care so much about the best quality. They all looked fine to me and were fun to paint. Nothing some black ink wash can't fix