470 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

THIS is the stock 3025 TRO image of the Urbanmech


THIS is an Urbanmech with the AC10 scaled down to the same degree as the differential between the Banshee and the Firestarter's PPCs.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 22 April 2014 - 12:14 PM.

[Dennis de Koning]

Like I mentioned though, things will even out as we get the bandwidth to work on them; you will not see a global change over night.
Trust me, we will address all 'Mechs in turn.
This system of standardization is relatively new and it takes time to retrofit.

[Bishop Steiner]

Dennis de Koning, on 22 April 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

Like I mentioned though, things will even out as we get the bandwidth to work on them; you will not see a global change over night.
Trust me, we will address all 'Mechs in turn.
This system of standardization is relatively new and it takes time to retrofit.

OK.

I can get that, and understand the workload. Just wanted to make sure it was on your radar. There are many awesome looking in game models, and in general ,love your modelers work. That is what makes it doubly distressing to see such discrepancies.

oh and Dennis? Pretty please can we fix my K2s arm PPCs? He has had confidence issues ever since shrinkage occurred.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 22 April 2014 - 12:16 PM.

[PACoFist]

Trebuchets have no weapon models at all. They always look the same, no matter what weapons are installed.
I know they are not terribly popular, but I like them and I hope you will find the time to fix them.

And maybe a TBT-hero ... just dreaming.

[Featherwood]

Dennis de Koning, on 22 April 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

Like I mentioned though, things will even out as we get the bandwidth to work on them; you will not see a global change over night.
Trust me, we will address all 'Mechs in turn.
This system of standardization is relatively new and it takes time to retrofit.

Thanks for addressing it, it was unexpected to see reply from PGI staff. I would like to trust, but... you know, there were issues in the past, my trust credit has been spent on my first account. So, if you don't mind answering to "brown knight", I would ask few questions:

• Will there be a list of Mechs for visuals revamp, roadmap with dates for refit or you do not have resources for it?
  
• Will you accept properly documented feedback on 'Mech proportions mismatch or review will be done in close circle?
  
• Could you create special queue for support tickets, if you don't like to use forum for that purpose?
  
• What about cockpits? There is a great thread by Haruko which perfectly shows huge problems with 'Mechs proportions and their cockpits.

[Bishop Steiner]

Featherwood, on 22 April 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

Thanks for addressing it, it was unexpected to see reply from PGI staff. I would like to trust, but... you know, there were issues in the past, my trust credit has been spent on my first account. So, if you don't mind answering to "brown knight", I would ask few questions:

• Will there be a list of Mechs for visuals revamp, roadmap with dates for refit or you do not have resources for it?
  
• Will you accept properly documented feedback on 'Mech proportions mismatch or review will be done in close circle?
  
• Could you create special queue for support tickets, if you don't like to use forum for that purpose?
  
• What about cockpits? There is a great thread by Haruko which perfectly shows huge problems with 'Mechs proportions and their cockpits.

good stuff, but because the mech scale is so wonky to begin with (seriously, the spider and commando are way too small, game play choice to increase viability) that I think the cockpits are largely unfixable, and at least they are something largely only noticed by 3D modelers, not the player base at large.

Not saying it wouldn't be great, just could see the speed bumps to doing it. (I'd pay IRL money to have a general scaling sweep done on the Mechs period, but I think we are in the minority on that)

[CDLord HHGD]

@ Dennis -- Thank you so much for taking the time to comment on this. Even though the discussion is ongoing, I appreciate seeing some interaction. Hanging in there like a trooper. The work you guys do is appreciated and loved by fans of MWO despite what we might say.

[Dennis de Koning]

Featherwood, on 22 April 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

Thanks for addressing it, it was unexpected to see reply from PGI staff. I would like to trust, but... you know, there were issues in the past, my trust credit has been spent on my first account. So, if you don't mind answering to "brown knight", I would ask few questions:

• Will there be a list of Mechs for visuals revamp, roadmap with dates for refit or you do not have resources for it?
  
  • All 'Mechs will be addressed
    
  • No time-line, it'll happen as the modellers find the bandwidth.
    
  • Yes, we have resources; it's just that one of them is not a time machine.
• Will you accept properly documented feedback on 'Mech proportions mismatch or review will be done in close circle?
  
  • I am always open to feedback but alas, not everyone's concerns can be satiated.
    
  • If you are implying 'Mech re-scaling; I've addressed this issue in the past. It is a lot of work and will take a back-seat to the weapons scaling.
• Could you create special queue for support tickets, if you don't like to use forum for that purpose?
  
  • I don't have the time to sift through support tickets. That is left up to QA. I do however skim the forums and try to answer anything that pertains to the Art Department as well as those forwarded to me via QA.
• What about cockpits? There is a great thread by Haruko which perfectly shows huge problems with 'Mechs proportions and their cockpits.
  
  • This is semantics. The cockpits are supposed to look good from your seat, not from pulling the game apart and making literal comparisons. The user, as it is implied, should never see the comparisons made in the Haruko thread. That being said, we've always tried to get as close as possible to a realistic fit.

[AlmightyAeng]

Dennis de Koning, on 22 April 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

In my head, Dennis' posts often have an "aw snap, son!" invisible at the bottom. Answers appreciated as always

[Bishop Steiner]

Dennis de Koning, on 22 April 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

thanks again for the feedback. We can be a petty, petulant and quarrelsome bunch, but at least for me, it's out of love for the game and the IP.

I promise not to flood your PM box with scale discrepancies!

[Dennis de Koning]

cdlord, on 22 April 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

@ Dennis -- Thank you so much for taking the time to comment on this. Even though the discussion is ongoing, I appreciate seeing some interaction. Hanging in there like a trooper. The work you guys do is appreciated and loved by fans of MWO despite what we might say.

Thanks very much.
You'd be surprised how far a brief compliment can take us;.
And let it be known that all the seemingly negative feedback is usually chalked up to run-away passion for a game deeply loved; none of which, despite the delivery in some cases, is taken personally.

[Sug]

Always nice to see some PGI responses.

[Clit Beastwood]

Dennis de Koning, on 22 April 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

Allow me to address this issue.
In the past, we had very little time to pump out 'Mechs and so, although weapons had a standardized look, their sizes were often skewed.
Most of the time, while building a 'Mech, the modellers would refer to a completed one (within it's class) for scaling, from which the weapons would be taken. The risk with this technique is the passing forward of possible scaling oddities and over time, creating bigger and bigger scaling inconsistencies.
Since we began retrofitting the 'Mechs to have dynamic visual load-out swapping, we have since created a single Weapons file (with all models being standardized in design and scale) for the modelling team to resource.
Now the caveat: Considering the drastic scaling differences between some light and assault 'Mechs, the weapons (in the file mentioned) are standardized per class. That is, an AC20 for a light 'Mech will still be smaller than one for an Assault, but not by much; ~1-4%/class depending on the weapon. This is necessary as some smaller 'Mechs just don't have the real-estate to carry an assault sized weapon, as well as that sometimes, it just looks goofy.

As the team still must continue to pump out 'Mechs on a regular bases, the modifications will occur when each modeller has the bandwidth so don't expect a global change over night.
Also, the 'Mechs that have a hero variant added will have the entire line retrofitted at the same time so it won't be uncommon to see newer 'Mechs being addressed prior to older ones.

I hope this clears thing up a bit.

Thanks,

DdK

Can we please have comically large weapons on the smallest mechs?

[Bishop Steiner]

Fierostetz, on 22 April 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

Can we please have comically large weapons on the smallest mechs?

if they are correctly scaled, that is the desired goal. 1/3 of your mechs mass in one gun should indeed look comically large.

Better than having ludicrously small ones.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 22 April 2014 - 01:04 PM.

[Clit Beastwood]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

if they are correctly scaled, that is the desired goal. 1/3 of your mechs mass in one gun should indeed look comically large.

Better than having ludicrously small ones.

[CDLord HHGD]

Fierostetz, on 22 April 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

[Bishop Steiner]

Fierostetz, on 22 April 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

so you prefer



that? Cause that is where the Firestarters PPCs sit.

[GreyGriffin]

While I appreciate the feedback, the terminology of "pumping out" 'mechs makes me raise an eyebrow.

[Clit Beastwood]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

so you prefer



that? Cause that is where the Firestarters PPCs sit.

No! I WANT the giganto cannons!

Fiero's all about the funny... and a locust running around with a barrel 2x the length of the chassis sounds hilarious

Bishop Steiner, on 22 April 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

so you prefer



that? Cause that is where the Firestarters PPCs sit.

THATS A TINY PPK NOT A PPC!

(I think it's a ppk at least... looks similar)

[Featherwood]

Dennis de Koning, on 22 April 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

• I am always open to feedback but alas, not everyone's concerns can be satiated.

Thx for answer. Now to the point, if you have time to continue conversation: can you provide template or example of feedback on 'Mech proportions you are interested in ? I mostly mean visuals, though in some cases, e.g. Awesome, I mean multiple factors. I've created topics and tickets in past appealing to 'Mechs exterior issues: those about Awesome and Catapult are the most latest, though there were few more in the past about other 'Mechs.

Edit: This suggestion about 'Mechs sizes looks reasonable for me.

Edited by Featherwood, 22 April 2014 - 01:33 PM.