20517 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Spheroid, on 04 July 2019 - 11:30 AM, said:

Why is a UAC-5 in game if MWO is set in 3015? UAC-5 only showed up in the mid 3030s and certainly wasn't common until 3040-3050.

Lostech™.

[Shadowomega1]

Spheroid, on 04 July 2019 - 11:30 AM, said:

Why is a UAC-5 in game if MWO is set in 3015? UAC-5 only showed up in the mid 3030s and certainly wasn't common until 3040-3050.

FupDup, on 04 July 2019 - 11:57 AM, said:

Lostech™.

MW5 was reported to take place between 3010-3040, also the ability to find SLDF caches as well.

[Bishop Steiner]

Spheroid, on 04 July 2019 - 11:30 AM, said:

Why is a UAC-5 in game if MWO is set in 3015? UAC-5 only showed up in the mid 3030s and certainly wasn't common until 3040-3050.

1) Game is set between 3015 and 3049

2) all assets were ported over for access, for modders and future DLC.

3) Why do people always seem to make mountains out of molehills? And seemingly look for any angle to be dissatisfied? *shrugs*

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 05 July 2019 - 06:30 AM.

[50 50]

Thought it was 3060 in MWO at the moment?

[Shadowomega1]

MW5 not MWO

[Sereglach]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 July 2019 - 02:46 PM, said:

3) Why do people always seem to make mountains out of molehills? And seemingly look fr angle angle to be dissatisfied? *shrugs*

The biggest reason is because people are passionate about the IP. The more people want something to succeed, and/or be great, the more the "perfectionist" can come out. Then throw into it just how diverse the Battletech IP is and everyone wants their personal favorites to get attention. There's always something for someone to be unhappy about.

That's why my personal hopes lie in PGI's vowed support of MW5 modding (and possibly the same for many other people). It's a lot easier for people to be satisfied when they can readily fix their issues for themselves. The success of games like Bethesda's Elder Scrolls and Fallout games stands testament to the whole premise (sorry 76, you're still SOL).

Just to use myself for an example. I'm not going to lie, I've been disgruntled at PGI for over 5 years because they've done nothing good for my favorite weapon in all of Battletech; and it made me eventually close my wallet on principle. If MW5 supports modding to the extent that Russ espouses, I'll buy it the moment I have confirmation.

[Odanan]

Kickstarter preview!

[MeiSooHaityu]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 July 2019 - 05:37 AM, said:

...Sadly the forearms are still the lazy "dynamic" ones, but really, the head was the number 1 killer on the ENF for me. I'm also hoping they use the engine to "loosen" up the to movement animations. The locked elbows always make the humanoid mechs look unnaturally stiff when moving.

It seems like the 'stiff' movement might be a bit of a trait of the FPS nature of the game. The weapons essentially could be fired at any moment during movement, so they need to be always at the ready and in a position to fire.

It seems like games like HBS BattleTech and MechCommander, games that are tactical and have weapons fire planned out, seem to be able to put in more fluid movement. Again probably because they can plan out when a mech fires and can work around that.

Also, they just have predetermined animations that play out too (especially HBS BattleTech) that are animated fluidly when certain actions take place.

I just think fluid animations with the arms especially is something that is more difficult or awkward to do in a game where the player can determine certain actions instantly at any given time.

[Karl Streiger]

MeiSooHaityu, on 12 July 2019 - 02:16 AM, said:

I just think fluid animations with the arms especially is something that is more difficult or awkward to do in a game where the player can determine certain actions instantly at any given time.

Not so much. Think of the Arma series it was possible to shoot the gun while:
standing in shooting position
moving crouched in shooting position
shooting from the hip
shooting while running.

think of the controlls in MW3 - you had a switch that let you either control the arm or the torso - same could be possible in a mech warrior game, you could go full speed - either by moving at more than 50% speed or you have a button that unlocks more speed - here the arms are moving dynamic to look as they are supporting the Mechs balance.

then you have the combat speed - here arms are positioned as in the picture. and when you go below 25% speed you can move the arms in "shooting" position. (could be as high as the shoulder - for the Enforcer - or Gunman style for Mechs like the Warhammer.

However the arms need to be remodeled to allow that (currently no arm could be used in dynamic movements, almost)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 12 July 2019 - 03:53 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Karl Streiger, on 12 July 2019 - 03:52 AM, said:

Not so much. Think of the Arma series it was possible to shoot the gun while:
standing in shooting position
moving crouched in shooting position
shooting from the hip
shooting while running.

think of the controlls in MW3 - you had a switch that let you either control the arm or the torso - same could be possible in a mech warrior game, you could go full speed - either by moving at more than 50% speed or you have a button that unlocks more speed - here the arms are moving dynamic to look as they are supporting the Mechs balance.

then you have the combat speed - here arms are positioned as in the picture. and when you go below 25% speed you can move the arms in "shooting" position. (could be as high as the shoulder - for the Enforcer - or Gunman style for Mechs like the Warhammer.

However the arms need to be remodeled to allow that (currently no arm could be used in dynamic movements, almost)

I guess I would have to see it in action. All I can imagine is a solider running with a rifle, and then the rifle instantly snapping from that rest position to a fire position, which in my mind would look unnatural.

Also, it might help that in Arma, the solider has a rifle to hold and generally would keep it pointing forward during movement. If as an example, if mechs were swinging their arms while running, instantly clicking a fire button would have to break animation and point the arms forward, and do it quickly to line up with the weapon fire at least somewhat closely.

I think that is why I have a hard time visualizing this in any way that looks natural. Again, I'd probably just need to see it in action.

[Tordin]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 July 2019 - 05:37 AM, said:

Sadly the forearms are still the lazy "dynamic" ones

Im all for that weapons added change the apperance. What I HATED in say MW4 and to some degree in Battletech the game is that no matter what you put on your mech, your frigging AC20 have the apperance of an Ac2 or ppc barrel, reduced to a cat laser pointer. Or say you add alot of missile racks... still shows as one rack or to be blunt two small holes with tiny missiles showing. However dynamic hardpoint could look better and more consistent, that Im all for.

If some around here want something to kill immersion alongside lack of "weight & height" feeling of mechs, then sure non adaptable/ non dynamic hardpoints are yet another way to go.

[Karl Streiger]

Tordin, on 12 July 2019 - 06:12 AM, said:

If some around here want something to kill immersion alongside lack of "weight & height" feeling of mechs, then sure non adaptable/ non dynamic hardpoints are yet another way to go.

well with some more time (not much) and a socket system you could have nice looking weapon dynamics
:

[Odanan]

Clan Invasion kickstarter starting in 6 hours guys.

[Marauder3D]

And about to hit $200,000 US. In less than 1 hour 15 minutes. WOOT!

[Odanan]

313,000 by now. Dang, they are adding A LOT of stretch goals!

https://www.kickstar...h-clan-invasion

[Odanan]

Grendel, a mech missing in MWO... :~(

Edited by Odanan, 17 July 2019 - 01:56 PM.

[Marauder3D]

I get the feeling the Grendel is a mech that works way better on paper and tabletop than it would in game. It's fast and light with weird hitboxes.

[Jay Leon Hart]

They added the Thor, Loki and Nova Cat? OK, maybe worth some pennies then...

[Sereglach]

Odanan, on 17 July 2019 - 12:28 PM, said:

313,000 by now. Dang, they are adding A LOT of stretch goals!

https://www.kickstar...h-clan-invasion

The whales are really jumping on it, which I guess means the grognards are still enough to keep CGL afloat. Good for them, if they've got the money. 379k out of 2k backers. Average donation amount just shy of $200 ($189.50 to be exact).

I'd honestly be more impressed if most backers were at the 30 level, but most are at the $150 level . . . which honestly isn't worth what they're offering until you get a LOT of stretch goals in there. Besides, sadly $30 seems the minimum to get any stretch goal bonuses . . . and even those are limited because the "bonuses" are already limited by the base pledge. At least they offer the $1 "entry" pledge for people who want to buy things piecemeal, which is pretty common among miniature kickstarters. That's a sort of consolation prize, I suppose . . . but this kickstarter is just all around bad.

Only 20 Retailer pledges . . . ouch . . . but for good reason. WHY pay $150 for 6x box sets when you can spend $120 and get the same thing? It offers the "stretch goals" for Star Captains but not the free bonus addons per pack. If that's a typo then CGL needs to fix it ASAP. Offering to sell addons at 50% "discount" at that pledge is also BS. That's standard warehouse pricing vs. MSRP for retailers . . . it's not a discount (which is why business license confirmation is mandatory). It's not doing anything to truly encourage retailers to place advance orders. That's all just dumping on the retailers that you want supporting you. You know, I never understood why all the game stores in 100 mile radius of where I live said CGL had TERRIBLE retailer support . . . but now we get to see it firsthand.

On the other hand, for a solid mini kickstarter comparison, only $100 in a Reaper Bones campaign nets you nearly $3-500 in minis because they keep adding to the core box when meeting stretch goals . . . not telling you that you're limited in stretch goal rewards based on your pledge. They basically let the average customers buy into the campaign, starting at a slight discount vs. retail, but with built in retailer discounts when their campaigns are successful. The growing bang for buck ensures success, which is what provides them great value and desire to back. It's the absolute opposite of what CGL is doing.

With CGL trying to breakout into the plastic mini market this just isn't the way to go. It's not very good first impressions, to be honest.

[Odanan]

Sereglach, on 17 July 2019 - 03:02 PM, said:

Only 20 Retailer pledges . . . ouch . . . but for good reason. WHY pay $150 for 6x box sets when you can spend $120 and get the same thing? It offers the "stretch goals" for Star Captains but not the free bonus addons per pack. If that's a typo then CGL needs to fix it ASAP. Offering to sell addons at 50% "discount" at that pledge is also BS.

I don't understand your math. $150 for 6 boxes = $25 each box.

The lowest price for the Clan box is the Star Commander ($50 for 1 box).

Edited by Odanan, 17 July 2019 - 05:08 PM.