950 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

Ronyn, on 05 June 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

tuned the lighter of the lights to be closer to stable around 120kph and the 35 ton lights around 105-110 that would still allow them speed, but going full tilt would still throw of their aim considerably.
I like this idea.

Most lights are actually very stable up to 112. Some to 120 already. It's when you go 129+ that they become unstable.

But then again recall the leg damages for touching rocks? Those were from an age when they were planning for mechs to 'trip' if they were going too fast over those parts of maps. Too fast being above 97 kph. (Seriously slow down to 90 or below and you'd never get damage from those areas). But without knockdowns and thus without falldowns, no one would 'click in' on what the intention was.

So in a way it'd restore that original intention of getting mechs to slow down now and then instead of always being top speed. I know I miss the days I'd walk up next to a building in a commando and peek around it to see if it was clear to move. Glad you like it. It motivates me to continue to put work towards it and try to push it on PGI.

[Phlinger]

Koniving, on 05 June 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

Most lights are actually very stable up to 112. Some to 120 already. It's when you go 129+ that they become unstable.

But then again recall the leg damages for touching rocks? Those were from an age when they were planning for mechs to 'trip' if they were going too fast over those parts of maps. Too fast being above 97 kph. (Seriously slow down to 90 or below and you'd never get damage from those areas). But without knockdowns and thus without falldowns, no one would 'click in' on what the intention was.

So in a way it'd restore that original intention of getting mechs to slow down now and then instead of always being top speed. I know I miss the days I'd walk up next to a building in a commando and peek around it to see if it was clear to move. Glad you like it. It motivates me to continue to put work towards it and try to push it on PGI.

When you get a really nice pitch lined up you should definitely present it to PGI. I think you're on to something that could really re-balance the game and do away with 1 solid Meta without all the nerfs and tweaks that we are currently seeing and have endured the last few years.

[Gyrok]

Masterrix, on 15 April 2014 - 01:30 AM, said:

I agree !

PGI's 3D-modelers seem to "cook their own soup" when translating the concept-arts into 3D-models

while concept-arts are looking very smooth and athletic (Centurion, Victor, Battlemaster ...)
the 3D-models are overmuscled body-builders, out of proportion, oversized shoulders, too wide torsos, blocky

in case of Mad-Cat, the 3D-modelers outproportioned the legs

question: is there an "order" for the 3D-modelers to change models this way, are do they really have a very bad taste and sense for translating sexy concept-arts ?

They have to play to the fiddle of most efficient polygon usage, something a pen and paper artist does not have to contend with...

[Koniving]

Gyrok, on 05 June 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

They have to play to the fiddle of most efficient polygon usage, something a pen and paper artist does not have to contend with...

There are cases, like this one... where the changes from the concept to what we got required zero polygon edits.






Zero changes in polygon count. Resizing took 3 seconds (actual comparative measurements took close to 2 hours to find out exactly what was out of proportion, only to discover everything was in proportion with each other, it's just the entire model was 15% thicker than the concept art).

[Ancient Demise]

Gyrok, on 05 June 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

They have to play to the fiddle of most efficient polygon usage, something a pen and paper artist does not have to contend with...

No excuse for poor modeling or just saying 'close enough' and moving on.

[Koniving]

Ancient Demise, on 06 June 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

No excuse for poor modeling or just saying 'close enough' and moving on.

In the case of the Centurion there was a valid reason. Back then splash damage was much larger, you didn't have to hit an enemy to damage it with SRMs or LRMs (just hitting next to them would damage them). Also the AC/20 and AC/10 had splash damage, so it wasn't necessary to hit the target just near them.

But, the smaller the mech the more intense the splash became. A skinny Centurion was 1) hard to hit (no lag compensation) and 2) devastated by splash damage.

PGI eventually nearly removed all splash mechanics by reducing them to 0.5 meters because when the multiplier issue was found to be hardcoded into CryEngine, PGI couldn't get rid of it.

Basically if I hit you with an SRM that does 2 damage, and you're the size of a commando, that 1 missile just did between 15 and 27 damage scattered about your body. o.o;

So my point is it wasn't as much poor modelling as it was 'other issues'. But...that was then. This is now. Now those issues are gone.

Now in the Dire Wolf's case, something really got changed. We know it's not just a mistake but we also know that it had a purpose. Was it hitbox related? Was it a balancing concern? Was it difficult to hit? Was it not morphing right in the simplified server geometry? We don't know the reason. We just know we don't like it.

Edited by Koniving, 06 June 2014 - 12:37 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Koniving, on 06 June 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

We don't know the reason yet. We just know we don't like it.

Fixed that for you.

[Mech42Ace]

It looks OK, but I like the original design better because the cockpit resembled the cockpit of a B-29 World War II heavy bomber, look it up, it's as slick, cool design.