79 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 April 2014 - 11:34 PM, said:

My BLRs all Run XLs,. and are my highest KDr Assaults. Absolutely love them. Don't mount the torso missiles and they shrug damage off quite well.

ShadowHawk is one of the best mechs in the Game, twists and survives damage Victors can't soak. (and it's triplet siblings are just about as good at it)

Thud dies because it can't lay out enough front loaded damage to compete, And generally has to stare. Properly built they tank a Centy like beating before dying though. They just lose the damage fest.

Locust ain't so much hitboxes, but the fact that you shoot it anywhere, it pretty much loses that location, because it's 20 tons, but not any faster than any other light. (Which I predicted, and yet people still clamor for the bloody Flea, which in general is SLOWER than the Locust).

Beside my Ember, the Phoenix Mechs are almost all I use anymore. (and my On1-VA)

My most successful Mechs currently are my BLR-1D, BLR-1S, SHD-2d2, SHD-2P, GRF-1N, GRF-3M, WVR-6R, ON1-VA and the Ember. Pretty sure that ain't a coincidence.

I would say you're a-typical.

My Banshee will eat Battlemasters in pairs all day long. So will my Atlas - or a Victor.

Anecdotal aspects aside, the BM has poor torso twist on the primary and the others all have fat side torsos. If nobody shoots you in the boobies.... well, you're a lucky fellow.

[SirLANsalot]

Jin Ma, on 20 April 2014 - 07:21 PM, said:

to be fair the clans got more rounded cockpits than the IS ever got

IS has what, the founder's jenner and griffin

Got to remember that round things means more polygons. Your computer renders each frame polygon by polygon, and the more "round" things in the scene, the more polys there are to render, and it slows things down (turning AA on or off dose this, AA "rounds" things). For each mech modle there is a "poly count" that each 3D modeler has to deal with when bringing something from a concept, to game. In the concept, you can make a mech look as beautiful as you want, but the ingame model can be drastically different because of the count. Large Square areas are 2 polys (2 triangles back to back to make a square) and as such allow you to "save" polys on a model. So that is modeling in a nutshell when it comes to making these mechs.



As for the leg difference? Prime variants will have different "geometry" from non primes. So a CT of a Prime will look slightly different from a non prime along with the legs (the things we cannot swap around from mech to mech according to there "omni" rules).

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 26 April 2014 - 11:44 PM, said:

I would say you're a-typical.

My Banshee will eat Battlemasters in pairs all day long. So will my Atlas - or a Victor.

Anecdotal aspects aside, the BM has poor torso twist on the primary and the others all have fat side torsos. If nobody shoots you in the boobies.... well, you're a lucky fellow.

or just good at twisting. I love eating Atlases and Banshees. You want to talk about crap mechs. Even with the biggest engine available, Banshees make Stalkers look agile. (La Malinche being the exception, which is weird as it's specs don't seem that much better, but since I own and have all of the masterd..... weird difference. Shame it's hardpoints are such crap). Atlases? Seriously? Usually 2 exchanges and the RT is gone. VTRs and Highlanders are the only ones I remotely worry about. JJs might be nerfed, but they still help.

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 April 2014 - 11:47 PM, said:

or just good at twisting. I love eating Atlases and Banshees. You want to talk about crap mechs. Even with the biggest engine available, Banshees make Stalkers look agile. (La Malinche being the exception, which is weird as it's specs don't seem that much better, but since I own and have all of the masterd..... weird difference. Shame it's hardpoints are such crap). Atlases? Seriously? Usually 2 exchanges and the RT is gone. VTRs and Highlanders are the only ones I remotely worry about. JJs might be nerfed, but they still help.

You and I need to drop together. My D-DC straps on a Battlemaster as a marital aid when it's going to do bad, unwholesome things to more dangerous mechs. While I don't get a ton of kills in it I make a significant bump in my teams odds of success. Use that ECM intelligently to keep your team in the bubble and blow the face off anyone stupid enough to try and close within ECM identification or blocking range.

I tease, but only a bit. Maybe I'm just BM'ing wrong. I want to love them - I do. I tried though and they are, at best and mastered, about average. The 1G a bit less so. In MW:O, Average is crap. It's either a great performer or it's food for a great performer.

My second to last match of the night was Frozen City in my 3E Banshee. I killed 3 Battlemasters, pretty much back to back. 3 shots to LT, dead. 3 shots to LT, dead. Then the last guy....

Yeah. 3 shots to that huge, fat, bigger than an entire Firestarter left torso (which, you must admit, is rather boob shaped) and BOOM. He died. Even did the hilarious, super-dramatic physX over-kill fly sideways and do a near complete flip off the edge of the canyon death. He tried to turn sideways to protect his torso... but he was in a 1G, which is incapable of turning at the torso enough to actually shield itself that way, so if you stay on target they are completely unable to defend themselves against something like a banshees firepower.

[Appogee]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 April 2014 - 11:34 PM, said:

My most successful Mechs currently are my BLR-1D (1.93), BLR-1S (3.60 KDr), SHD-2d2 (2.48) , SHD-2P (2.61), GRF-1N (3.75 KDr), GRF-3M (2.60), WVR-6R (2.25), ON1-VA (2.96) and the Ember (2.44). Pretty sure that ain't a coincidence. (yup, no L33T stats here)

Are you mostly dropping with a premade, or mostly as a PUG?

I've found it makes a huge difference to both your stats and also to which Mechs are most successful. For example, some Mechs do well when part of a coordinated lance, but don't survive in the every-mech-for-himself pug matches. Other Mechs are better suited to the all-round general derping of pug matches.

On BLRs: mine do so well that my lancemates have started asking me to bring them to 12-mans instead of my more usually favoured Phracts, Firestarters or (sadly nerfed) Victors. Mine are different to most in that I go for very big engines in them at the cost of loadout. The extra agility pays off in survivability and damage delivered over time.

Edited by Appogee, 27 April 2014 - 12:54 AM.

[Impyrium]

SirLANsalot, on 26 April 2014 - 11:45 PM, said:

Got to remember that round things means more polygons. Your computer renders each frame polygon by polygon, and the more "round" things in the scene, the more polys there are to render, and it slows things down (turning AA on or off dose this, AA "rounds" things). For each mech modle there is a "poly count" that each 3D modeler has to deal with when bringing something from a concept, to game. In the concept, you can make a mech look as beautiful as you want, but the ingame model can be drastically different because of the count. Large Square areas are 2 polys (2 triangles back to back to make a square) and as such allow you to "save" polys on a model. So that is modeling in a nutshell when it comes to making these mechs.



As for the leg difference? Prime variants will have different "geometry" from non primes. So a CT of a Prime will look slightly different from a non prime along with the legs (the things we cannot swap around from mech to mech according to there "omni" rules).

That's been brought up before, and frankly is a common misconception between those who haven't modeled for games before. I'm not saying it's not a factor; yes, round objects will use more polygons than a square. But the Timber Wolf is not a square, and isn't very simple in terms of polygon count despite the squarer design. More proof; the collectors edition Timber Wolf. It's round.

A smart modeller will know how to balance polygons to create proper forms. Here, it's simply a design choice, not a polygon limitation. Though, if there's any PGI peeps reading this, please do say if I'm wrong. I've just worked with a lot of projects where round objects just needed more thinking, but were still possible.

[SirLANsalot]

AUSwarrior24, on 27 April 2014 - 12:53 AM, said:

That's been brought up before, and frankly is a common misconception between those who haven't modeled for games before. I'm not saying it's not a factor; yes, round objects will use more polygons than a square. But the Timber Wolf is not a square, and isn't very simple in terms of polygon count despite the squarer design. More proof; the collectors edition Timber Wolf. It's round.

A smart modeller will know how to balance polygons to create proper forms. Here, it's simply a design choice, not a polygon limitation. Though, if there's any PGI peeps reading this, please do say if I'm wrong. I've just worked with a lot of projects where round objects just needed more thinking, but were still possible.

There are affordances in every game, especially in mutiplayer games where lots of things are going to be going on at once within a scene. RTS games have very low poly affordances due to the fact there will be hundreds of those models on the field at once. Games like MWO where, at most, there are 24 things on the field, opens up the affordances they can have per each mech and piece of terrain. These affordance are based on what the developer has set for themselves based on what target computer specs they want to have as there minimum run.

I have noticed some better mechs showing up as of late (in design) then what we had originally when the game first hit CB. Although the desing of this mechwarrior title is a little more "tanky" style in look and feel for each mech, and as such mechs like the Kintaro had major overhauls from the original TRO art. This Tanky style look to Mechwarrior not only makes the game feel "cool" but also makes sense from a design standpoint too when it comes to modeling.

[Impyrium]

SirLANsalot, on 27 April 2014 - 02:28 AM, said:

There are affordances in every game, especially in mutiplayer games where lots of things are going to be going on at once within a scene. RTS games have very low poly affordances due to the fact there will be hundreds of those models on the field at once. Games like MWO where, at most, there are 24 things on the field, opens up the affordances they can have per each mech and piece of terrain. These affordance are based on what the developer has set for themselves based on what target computer specs they want to have as there minimum run.

I have noticed some better mechs showing up as of late (in design) then what we had originally when the game first hit CB. Although the desing of this mechwarrior title is a little more "tanky" style in look and feel for each mech, and as such mechs like the Kintaro had major overhauls from the original TRO art. This Tanky style look to Mechwarrior not only makes the game feel "cool" but also makes sense from a design standpoint too when it comes to modeling.

But... but... Timber Wolf...

[anonymous161]

What bothers me the most is how small the cockpit looks now, it should go out a little more like the concept art shows, the actual rendered model looks pretty disappointing really. I'd buy it right now if it looked less blocky and more like it originally should look.

People talking about polygons and not being able to be smooth....for F's sake were in 2014, are you saying pgi is incapable of making something round due to hardware, and software? Cmon dude it's just laziness than actual ability, by now if we want to make a tire in a game it can be round instead of blocky. Give me a break lol

So yeah right now the legs and cockpit need to be rounded up and shaped better. The legs are too beefy will just be too easy to take out, the cockpit needs to be a bit longer. The arms are fine by me though, what I want to see is a rendered summoner.

[Bishop Steiner]

Appogee, on 27 April 2014 - 12:51 AM, said:

Are you mostly dropping with a premade, or mostly as a PUG?

I've found it makes a huge difference to both your stats and also to which Mechs are most successful. For example, some Mechs do well when part of a coordinated lance, but don't survive in the every-mech-for-himself pug matches. Other Mechs are better suited to the all-round general derping of pug matches.

On BLRs: mine do so well that my lancemates have started asking me to bring them to 12-mans instead of my more usually favoured Phracts, Firestarters or (sadly nerfed) Victors. Mine are different to most in that I go for very big engines in them at the cost of loadout. The extra agility pays off in survivability and damage delivered over time.

I PUG about 75% of the time, but usually run the same mechs in Premades. Yeah, On the BLR I run between 360s-380s, usually. My IG is the exception, realizing it was gimped anyhow, I went to the "anchor" design with it, dropped in a 300, and treat it like an Atlas, have the teamwork off it. If the DDC didn't have the ECM, I think we would see a whole lot less Atlases on the field.

[Illya Ghost Bear]

Darth Bane001, on 27 April 2014 - 05:54 AM, said:

What bothers me the most is how small the cockpit looks now, it should go out a little more like the concept art shows, the actual rendered model looks pretty disappointing really. I'd buy it right now if it looked less blocky and more like it originally should look.

People talking about polygons and not being able to be smooth....for F's sake were in 2014, are you saying pgi is incapable of making something round due to hardware, and software? Cmon dude it's just laziness than actual ability, by now if we want to make a tire in a game it can be round instead of blocky. Give me a break lol

So yeah right now the legs and cockpit need to be rounded up and shaped better. The legs are too beefy will just be too easy to take out, the cockpit needs to be a bit longer. The arms are fine by me though, what I want to see is a rendered summoner.

No. What he is saying is whatever PGI Makes, the players computer has to render. CryEngine is already one of the most resource intensive Game Engines. While higher end computers won't blink (much) it WILL start to affect the performance of many many lower end computers, because they have to track then render all those lovely little polygons. Even with the mostly blocky designs, many many people have issues doing that

SO cmon dude, it's 2014, stop being lazy and learn how computers work!

Edited by Illya Arkhipova, 27 April 2014 - 07:46 AM.

[Gyrok]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 April 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:

I PUG about 75% of the time, but usually run the same mechs in Premades. Yeah, On the BLR I run between 360s-380s, usually. My IG is the exception, realizing it was gimped anyhow, I went to the "anchor" design with it, dropped in a 300, and treat it like an Atlas, have the teamwork off it. If the DDC didn't have the ECM, I think we would see a whole lot less Atlases on the field.

I dropped the XL400 out of my Boar's Head into the BLRs, and I have to say, an 85 ton mech doing 84 kph is a thing of beauty...

I run the 1G as a stand off mech with 1 ERPPC/1LBX and 4xMLs, it is not a hot build, it hits hard enough (especially flanking) and has decent ranging ability. When I am favoring a brawl, I run a LPL over the ERPPC. I used to run 4xERLL in the torso, and it was a load of fun, if not heavily gimped by the amount of twist/yaw in the torso.

Going to have to rethink my 1D build since it used to be 3xAC2 with 1 ERLL and XL350...*sigh*...stupid AC2 nerf...may just copy the 1G build and run it on the more agile variant.

1S is my ONLY dedicated LRM boat...XL350 + LRM50 with 11 tons of ammo and 3MLs + Tag. I LOVE the battlemaster as a dedicated missle platform. It is a capable assault with good mobility. It is really a shame I do not run LRMs all that often, I just do not care for them.

[Jonny Taco]

The mad cat looks too blocky imo... To a small extent it almost looks like it's built out of legos. I would not be at all against sending it through the art team again and sleeking it up with more rounded edges and less blocky arms.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gyrok, on 27 April 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

I dropped the XL400 out of my Boar's Head into the BLRs, and I have to say, an 85 ton mech doing 84 kph is a thing of beauty...

I run the 1G as a stand off mech with 1 ERPPC/1LBX and 4xMLs, it is not a hot build, it hits hard enough (especially flanking) and has decent ranging ability. When I am favoring a brawl, I run a LPL over the ERPPC. I used to run 4xERLL in the torso, and it was a load of fun, if not heavily gimped by the amount of twist/yaw in the torso.

Going to have to rethink my 1D build since it used to be 3xAC2 with 1 ERLL and XL350...*sigh*...stupid AC2 nerf...may just copy the 1G build and run it on the more agile variant.

1S is my ONLY dedicated LRM boat...XL350 + LRM50 with 11 tons of ammo and 3MLs + Tag. I LOVE the battlemaster as a dedicated missle platform. It is a capable assault with good mobility. It is really a shame I do not run LRMs all that often, I just do not care for them.

BLR-1D
It's what I been running for quite some time. Seems to do a nice blend. I do run LRMs on the Arms of my 1S, which is a mildly eclectic, hardly optimized build, but boy has it been effective.

[Impyrium]

Illya Arkhipova, on 27 April 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

No. What he is saying is whatever PGI Makes, the players computer has to render. CryEngine is already one of the most resource intensive Game Engines. While higher end computers won't blink (much) it WILL start to affect the performance of many many lower end computers, because they have to track then render all those lovely little polygons. Even with the mostly blocky designs, many many people have issues doing that

SO cmon dude, it's 2014, stop being lazy and learn how computers work!

No, he has a point; round does not always mean more polygons. If they were to redesign the TW to closer resemble what it's supposed to look like, it could even use less. The current design isn't conservative; just because it's built of legos doesn't automatically mean it has less details.

Keep this in mind: MW4 managed to create a more rounded, spindly 'Mech that, even though it's not my favorite, looks more like a Timber Wolf. It doesn't use many rounded surfaces, but the design gives it that appearance. And they had LESS polygons to work with; it's all a matter of design, polygons really aren't a factor here.

Edited by AUSwarrior24, 27 April 2014 - 05:15 PM.

[SirLANsalot]

AUSwarrior24, on 27 April 2014 - 05:13 PM, said:

No, he has a point; round does not always mean more polygons. If they were to redesign the TW to closer resemble what it's supposed to look like, it could even use less. The current design isn't conservative; just because it's built of legos doesn't automatically mean it has less details.

Keep this in mind: MW4 managed to create a more rounded, spindly 'Mech that, even though it's not my favorite, looks more like a Timber Wolf. It doesn't use many rounded surfaces, but the design gives it that appearance. And they had LESS polygons to work with; it's all a matter of design, polygons really aren't a factor here.

With textures you can make things appear to be round using Hexagon or Octagon looking parts. Polys are one part of the equation and textures, and texture quality are the other.

[Sephlock]

AUSwarrior24, on 20 April 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

Righto; please don't hate me for making another thread based on the Timber Wolf, I know it got discussed to death beforehand and I'm pretty sure everyone's come to terms with it. I'm personally rather neutral on it, though frankly I would have preferred a rounder design.

But I noticed this, which I didn't see before and I don't think has been posted elsewhere:



So that fancy promotional art for the Timber Wolf is rather different to the concept art. The most obvious difference is the legs; the concept art has that pod-like lower legs, with a round styling. I like that Timber Wolf a lot more. Yet what they seem to have used as a reference for their modeller is the promotional piece, which uses squarer, somewhat awkward shaping.

Now... I'm a little worried. I like the orange concept art on the Clan page, and the rounded style suits the Clans. It's refreshing. I understand no model is ever going to be the same as its concept... but... the other orange concepts are rounded, and look great. Are they going to do the same to the other Clan 'Mechs?

Just curious to people's thoughts on the use of the promotional piece rather than the concept art, especially since we're buying the Clan 'Mechs based on the concept art...

EDIT: Unless... they starting modelling before the promotional piece was done, and the modeller may have decided to go with a square design for whatever reason. Then they may have redone the concept art to use square legs afterwards...

Stop objectifying the Madcat!

[Impyrium]

The one on the left has more curves than our current Mad Cat.

[Kilo 40]

Sephlock, on 27 April 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:

Stop objectifying the Madcat!

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 April 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

BLR-1D
It's what I been running for quite some time. Seems to do a nice blend. I do run LRMs on the Arms of my 1S, which is a mildly eclectic, hardly optimized build, but boy has it been effective.

Okay. So you were right, I was wrong.

I took your advice on how to maneuver and quit trying to brawl with it. I've had 3 different builds I've tried 10 drops each in with the 1G and actually....

Not bad. Not bad at all.

I am officially less irked with my Overlord package. Still not thrilled, but less irked.

Due props.

I still say the 60 degree twist on the 1G is bad and whoever did it should feel bad, but otherwise, when you distance the BM from what it was in tabletop and look at it on its own, it's not bad for an 85 ton assault. Not peak, but not bad.

Edited by MischiefSC, 28 April 2014 - 12:04 PM.