111 replies to this topic

[Tennex]

This is what PGI basically did. look at jager's right barrel.

Edited by Tennex, 15 May 2013 - 06:45 AM.

[Adridos]

One assumes it is still WiP and someone has simply taken those shots to tease us about the Blackjack?

Correcting something like this is certainly not that hard as it might be a bit time consuming and if there's something PGI does well, it's the mech design.

As far as the difference in barrel quality goes, that's because of the modularity. The more customisable a model gets, the less bells and whistles can you put on it and avoid hollow places.

[Tennex]

Adridos, on 14 May 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

One assumes it is still WiP and someone has simply taken those shots to tease us about the Blackjack?

Correcting something like this is certainly not that hard as it might be a bit time consuming and if there's something PGI does well, it's the mech design.

As far as the difference in barrel quality goes, that's because of the modularity. The more customisable a model gets, the less bells and whistles can you put on it and avoid hollow places.

I hope they fix this. Since it is already a modular piece, it would be very easy to move. if they are far enough in development they may have to move the vector as well. but that should be just as simple.

but this sort of thing is not very hard to get right the first time.

The barrel quality would have been nice. but whatever

Edited by Tennex, 14 May 2013 - 01:10 PM.

[Lord Perversor]

ForestGnome, on 14 May 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

I have to agree with Tennex on this one, though not entirely. The non-center barrel makes sense, the barrel is not center to the mechanics. However on the whole design is plummeting.


Even the splash art has one critical flaw. Like serious flaw, a flaw weighing 5 tons. THEY DREW THE OMNI-MECH BLACKJACK. The two UAC5's and those arm mounts DIRECTLY indicate it is the UAC/5 Omni-Blackjack which not only doesn't exist yet, it also weighs 5 tons more.

I know all the "white knights" just like to say "Oh, it's MWO's art style, they change stuff." Yeah, well just because PGI draws a circle and calls it a square, doesn't mean they actually drew a square.

MWO UAC5's looks like a rotatory 3 barrel gun, the splash art aren't UAC5's like MWO style.

Also we are piloting Grand Dragons and not Dragons since the Grand it's the only version with lower arm actuator in the right arm so?

[Tennex]

Lord Perversor, on 14 May 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

MWO UAC5's looks like a rotatory 3 barrel gun, the splash art aren't UAC5's like MWO style.

Also we are piloting Grand Dragons and not Dragons since the Grand it's the only version with lower arm actuator in the right arm so?

The rotery AC5s bother me too.

but just to clear things up. the Dragon is the correct version. in the TRO. dragon has lower arm actuators on both arms.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tennex, on 14 May 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

you are ignoring the part where i dismiss that they havent put in barrel details. i thnk you are the troll here

so the finished product doesn't have centered barrels?
and just because its a F2P company. we can have low expectations? I'm sorry but in this day and age F2P games have set the bar very high. League of Legends, Planetside 2.

Having low quality because of F2P is no longer an excuse.



1. a gun can still be modular and centered correctly. its not mutually exclusive

2. bro... are you looking at the same picture i am. who can that possibly be perspective. the barrels do not lead to the center. its crossing the boarders

AC one deosn't bother me, actually kinda like it. The right PPC one is pretty egregious.

[Ghogiel]

ForestGnome, on 14 May 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

Actually... re-pinning, and perhaps re-drawing part the 3d model/mesh may not be very "minimal."

Actually... it's so ridiculously minimal, mentioning 'difficulty' in the same sentence gives a bad impression.

[Adridos]

ForestGnome, on 14 May 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Yes, they turned the UAC/5 into an RAC/5. What the **** is up with that?
Yes, the dragons are actually grand dragons. This is just ********.

1: Official Battletech Catalyst art... the canon above all the canon and cannons depicting experimental UAC/10 Hunchabck.



2: Dragon record sheet, the real indicator of what a mech is.

[MonkeyCheese]

My complaint between the concept and the in game design is WHY the hell for the two ballistic variants is there only one medium laser hard point per arm when the concept art shows two.

Having an ac2/5 and two medium lasers on an arm is what got me excited about the blackjacks concept art. Now the laser hard points are split up between the side torsos and the arms.

[Lord Perversor]

Tennex, on 14 May 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

The rotery AC5s bother me too.

but just to clear things up. the Dragon is the correct version. in the TRO. dragon has lower arm actuators on both arms.

Well you are right the oddity it's not about the actuators (i always focus on this while not being the issue) but the looks of the right arm as the original designs should had it as an elongated pointin forward arm . .

Even PGI recognized this.

Still i must say after watch the previous info it seems like an odd photoshop on the right arm cannon on the blackjack (like if the modular design for those weapons wasn't rdy yet) and they just did for the pic.

[Khanahar]

ForestGnome, on 14 May 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Yes, you are right, and have presented more reasons why PGI shouldn't be allowed to **** battletech.

Yes, they turned the UAC/5 into an RAC/5. What the **** is up with that?
Yes, the dragons are actually grand dragons. This is just ********.
And Yes, according to the "mwo art style" technically those aren't even guns, but just really long pointing arms.






So yes, PGI's designs are going from horrible, to even worse.


At my company we call this "designers who have never played the game."

I kinda thought that the high quality of FD's art was one of the few things everyone around here could agree on. Oh well.

And I, for one, liked that it went by TROs (see the CDA) rather than the previous art.
--

And Tennex, seriously, just getting angry at me when I'm trying to be helpful to you is really not good for your case. If you want to effect change, be polite and persuasive. If you want to troll, carry on.

[Zyllos]

I think that is because the artist (for CBT) did not draw the Dragon correctly to the TRO.

[Native]

ForestGnome, on 14 May 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Yes, they turned the UAC/5 into an RAC/5. What the **** is up with that?

in PGI's defense, UAC's are sometimes depicted in art as rotary AC... the Cygnus and Stormcrow B come to mind

hell, the Atlas II art depicts the LB-X Autocannon/10 as a Rotary as well

Edited by Native, 14 May 2013 - 01:33 PM.

[Khanahar]

MonkeyCheese, on 14 May 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

My complaint between the concept and the in game design is WHY the hell for the two ballistic variants is there only one medium laser hard point per arm when the concept art shows two.

Having an ac2/5 and two medium lasers on an arm is what got me excited about the blackjacks concept art. Now the laser hard points are split up between the side torsos and the arms.

TROs.
Alex addresses it here.
http://mwomercs.com/...49#entry1374549

Edit:

Native, on 14 May 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

[/size]

in PGI's defense, UAC's are sometimes depicted in art as rotary AC... the Cygnus and Stormcrow B come to mind

Hunch IIC in several depictions too:
http://www.sarna.net...nchback_IIC.jpg
and the MC version, but with 4 barrels.

Edited by Khanahar, 14 May 2013 - 01:32 PM.

[Zyllos]

MonkeyCheese, on 14 May 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

My complaint between the concept and the in game design is WHY the hell for the two ballistic variants is there only one medium laser hard point per arm when the concept art shows two.

Having an ac2/5 and two medium lasers on an arm is what got me excited about the blackjacks concept art. Now the laser hard points are split up between the side torsos and the arms.

I am not sure myself. I think the BJ-1 had all weapons in the arms. But I don't have the TRO in front of me of the Blackjack.

Edited by Zyllos, 14 May 2013 - 01:30 PM.

[Lord Perversor]

2 points.

That Hunchback with ultra AC/10 was draw by the same person it draws PGI mechs right now

Also the lore of Battletech explain that the weapon ballistic category it's an estimated on the overall dmg over time of the weapons.
there is Ac/20 working as a single slug and there is AC/20 shooting several or hundreds of bullets to achieve the same dmg it depends of who built it hence why not all weapons types are similar and should not be considered similar just by draws.

The Dragon it's an oddity the visuals shows like it lacks the lower right arm actuator yet ALL the sheets shows it has one since the very beginning, as far i remember it's one of those artistic licenses of the early days.

Edited by Lord Perversor, 14 May 2013 - 01:35 PM.

[StonedVet]

Haters gonna hate. Im not a fan of the mech but im not gonna complain about it.

[Khanahar]

Zyllos, on 14 May 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

I am not sure myself. I think the BJ-1 had all weapons in the arms. But I don't have the TRO in front of me of the Blackjack.

1 ML, 1 AC/2 per arm, 1 ML per side torso.

Unofficial source, but generally accurate:
http://www.ebt.trueb...y=name,%20model

[Native]

Lowridah, on 14 May 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

Haters gonna hate. Im not a fan of the mech but im not gonna complain about it.

this; exactly. I'm not a huge fan of assaults myself for example, but, get exited whenever a new mech comes out regardless of if i'm going to use it or not... I'm just dumbfounded about all the complaining going on about something that isn't even here yet.

Edited by Native, 14 May 2013 - 01:49 PM.

[Tennex]

Khanahar, on 14 May 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

And Tennex, seriously, just getting angry at me when I'm trying to be helpful to you is really not good for your case. If you want to effect change, be polite and persuasive. If you want to troll, carry on.

woah i was trying to be helpful to you as well by giving advice.

since you are doing it too. it would be hypocritical of you not to understand where i'm coming from.