16 replies to this topic

[Morang]

Pointless thing IMO. Well, well, maybe it have its place as the pattern with largest size of elements currently, but wasting a channel on some US Army emblem which does not belong to BT/MW Universe in the first place... Close to wasted effort.

I find it more preferable for design team to address Digital and Fractal patterns on some mechs where they are too asymmetric. I understand that left and right halves of the camouflaged mech shouldn't be perfect mirror image, but when there is one channel clearly dominating on the right side, but another on the left, it's hard to create satisfactory paintwork. Maybe just split those patterns in two versions, symmetric and not, for each mech...

BTW I want to note that camo can actually work in MWO. I noticed a couple of time, in Canyon Network especially, that it's hard for me to tell my opponent from background in close-in furball of light mechs. Of course, switching to thermals is the obvious answer, but it forces you to lower your overall situation awareness somewhat: harder to observe terrain correctly, easy to misjudge relative distances, harder to aim for particular components, reduced visual range.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Then don't buy it?

[Sable Dove]

I just think it's funny that they used a Stalker to model it. It's hard to find a mech that fits the image of a Sherman less. A Cicada 3C would have been a better fit.

[5th Fedcom Rat]

The Battletech universe shares our earth history (albeit one that diverts in the 1980s where the Berlin Wall never fell).

Lots of units/emblems/mechs in battletech trace inspiration from earth wars, including the Napoleonic Wars and World War 2. I see no reason why this camo doesn't belong.

Now give me German Panzer patterns (i.e. ambush and splinter) as well PGI....

Sable Dove, on 04 June 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

I just think it's funny that they used a Stalker to model it. It's hard to find a mech that fits the image of a Sherman less. A Cicada 3C would have been a better fit.

Well they're both the ugliest things on the field of battle.

.

Edited by 5th Fedcom Rat, 04 June 2013 - 01:07 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

5th Fedcom Rat, on 04 June 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

Now give me German Panzer patterns (i.e. ambush and splinter) as well PGI....

I second this notion, my favorite models to build were the Panzers of WWII just because it was so much fun to paint them.

[Oy of MidWorld]

It's like they want to underline that WoT flair some people say the game has... The shared history argument is true, the paintjob still looks oddly out of place. Can we get a little more BattleTech content? World of walking WW2 Tanks is something i can live without...

[Ramien]

The Sherman paint job looks great on the Commando. It makes it a reasonable facsimile of a green army figure!

[CarnifexMaximus]

5th Fedcom Rat, on 04 June 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

Now give me German Panzer patterns (i.e. ambush and splinter) as well PGI....

This all the way. My JM6-DD was painted in various shades of grey while looking at lots of colorized photos of Mk.IV Panzers open in another window... I just need an Iron Cross on its leg or side torso.

[InRev]

And here I was looking for a thread about the new camo so that I could say how much I like it.

Granted, I just finished a binge run of Band of Brothers in the run up to June 6th, so I'm in a bit of a World War II mood.

[Pinkamena Diane Pie]

Ehhh. I don't remember the invasion star's circle having SIX breaks in the circle borders. And what's with having like...6+ stars on most of the mechs? The catapult would've looked better if there wasn't a star slapped on the nose, and the jagermech would've looked fine if there weren't stars on 3 perpendicular surfaces...it's as though the artists were just trying to find an excuse to paint in a GAZILLION stars just because.

I bought it for my k2 anyways heheheh

[Ari Dian]

i have not seen the camo so far.
Do you mean there are stars on the camo? If so they should really remove these. Stars are for decals (will come around 2016) and should not be part of the camo at all.

I would not say they are non BT lore, but missplaces on the camo set.

[Ramien]

Ari Dian, on 05 June 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

i have not seen the camo so far.
Do you mean there are stars on the camo? If so they should really remove these. Stars are for decals (will come around 2016) and should not be part of the camo at all.

I would not say they are non BT lore, but missplaces on the camo set.

Why? All the skulls and pithy comments/pictures on the Buccaneer sets aren't decals. (although if I could get the Raven emblem that's on the side of the 2X Buccaneer as a decal, that would be awesome)

[Tannhauser Gate]

Meh, Im not a fan of this scheme. Looks like it belongs on a toy.
(Edited for attitude)

Edited by LakeDaemon, 05 June 2013 - 04:57 PM.

[tuffy963]

I agree with the OP in this.. In my opinion, this symbol seems to undermine the experience the game is trying to create, namely the one built in previous Battle Tech canon. Everyone time I see one of these camo schemes, I stop thinking about a war-torn future filled with giant walking death machines, and I start thinking about earth WWII history. That moment of undermining my ability to "suspend disbelief" is all I need to tell me this camo scheme is probably ill suited for this game, with this canon.

Unless... this American WWII era military symbol somehow means something in the MW universe.

[Tannhauser Gate]

Imo, MWO needs to be a rich, edgy, immersive MW combat experience. Silly cockpit items are fine but when whole mechs start looking dumb then it ruins the game. The game doesn’t have to be 100% canon for me but I definitely do not want it to become silly and insulting to the MW fans. This camo looks like it belongs on a toy. Just my opinion.

[Mechteric]

In Battletech there's a tank called the Patton and Rommel, so yes they do take some names from "history"

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

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

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 12 June 2013 - 10:25 AM.

[tuffy963]

CapperDeluxe, on 12 June 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

In Battletech there's a tank called the Patton and Rommel, so yes they do take some names from "history"

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

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

Well, that strengthens the argument, but still seems like a pretty weak reason to use this symbol/scheme, especially when there is so much more basic game functionality & canon that still needs to be put in place. Could we have gotten a second mech this month, or another map in place of this camo?