20517 replies to this topic

[Odanan]

ssm, on 06 March 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

I've done some preliminary re-scaling to make Alex's Banshee more like TRO art. It's extremely lazy mock-up, but shows that at least silhouette is workable:

Nice job!

[Bishop Steiner]

ssm, on 06 March 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

I've done some preliminary re-scaling to make Alex's Banshee more like TRO art. It's extremely lazy mock-up, but shows that at least silhouette is workable:

man, just make the raybans stand out more, and BANG, it would work. Alex followed the basic lines of the thing, he jsut made it sooooooo fat!

[ssm]

Bishop Steiner, on 06 March 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

man, just make the raybans stand out more, and BANG, it would work. Alex followed the basic lines of the thing, he jsut made it sooooooo fat!

Yes, thats the gist of it. We have incredibly good Banshee model, but somewhere along the way somebody decided that it should be put in Battlemaster's pants.

Making Raybans stand out by changing geometry is somewhat problematic (as MWO cockpits are notorious to work with), but something could be done simply by darkening cokckpit's surface in relation to rest of the model:



One more fun fact - Hero Banshee actually had Jump Jets done (they are in game files) - looks like they were taken out before the release.

Edited by ssm, 06 March 2014 - 07:33 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

ssm, on 06 March 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

Yes, thats the gist of it. We have incredibly good Banshee model, but somewhere along the way somebody decided that it should be put in Battlemaster's pants.

Making Raybans stand out by changing geometry is somewhat problematic (as MWO cockpits are notorious to work with), but something could be done simply by darkening cokckpit's surface in relation to rest of the model:



One more fun fact - Hero Banshee actually had Jump Jets done (they are in game files) - looks like they were taken out before the release.

P2W worries. Unfortunately, the only thing that makes sense with it's hardpoints is that those were decided before they yanked the JJs, so were a little weak intentionally. Then the JJs got dropped, but the Hardpoints stayed weak.

[FireSlade]

ssm, on 06 March 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

Yes, thats the gist of it. We have incredibly good Banshee model, but somewhere along the way somebody decided that it should be put in Battlemaster's pants.

Making Raybans stand out by changing geometry is somewhat problematic (as MWO cockpits are notorious to work with), but something could be done simply by darkening cokckpit's surface in relation to rest of the model:



One more fun fact - Hero Banshee actually had Jump Jets done (they are in game files) - looks like they were taken out before the release.

Well that sucks for PGI I would have considered buying the Hero Banshee if it had JJs. They probably took them out to prevent a 95ton jumpsniper.

[SweetJackal]

Bishop Steiner, on 06 March 2014 - 07:45 PM, said:

P2W worries. Unfortunately, the only thing that makes sense with it's hardpoints is that those were decided before they yanked the JJs, so were a little weak intentionally. Then the JJs got dropped, but the Hardpoints stayed weak.

They very least they could have given the Banshee a better movement profile than Huge since the Banshee was designed as a fast assault to the point that stock designs sacrificed a lot of firepower.

Though I don't agree with the Hero Mech model as a whole. I am fine with the C-Bill and XP boost on the mech and the unique look to it but putting in these unique hardpoint layouts behind paywalls flirts with the Buying Power by allowing it to be possible.

Which is why mechs like the Oxide, Golden Boy and now the Hero Banshee get neutered. I know I wouldn't have been comfortable with a Poptart Sniper Hero that did the job better than the Highlander as we would have seen a shift in the Pro-League (GG CLOSE HAR HAR) Meta towards that. 5 Tons might not seem like much but that is the difference between having to make sacrifices with a Jager to having a balanced build on a Cataphrat.

And frankly I cannot support a game in good conscience when that game takes steps to force those that want to be competitive to fork over real money. It's one of the reasons why I'm against their current plans for private matches and their "premium time required" model or "pay per use" model for any sort of control in private matches. Going too deep into that had nothing to do with mechs though.

I do hope these weaker heroes get revisited and buffed. Different yet Equal is cool, Different and Worse is tricking some players out of money.

[SgtMagor]

there really was no reason to yank the jump jets off the Banshee. for that matter why didn't they take the jump jets off the Dragon Slayer, Heavy Metal, Jester. or Ember. Wish PGI would reconsider putting the jump jets back on La Malinche! its no heavy hitter by any means, its already running kind of light for weapons. 6 hardpoints in a 95 ton mech is lacking. atl least put the jumpjets back on it!!!

[Bishop Steiner]

SgtMagor, on 07 March 2014 - 04:07 AM, said:

there really was no reason to yank the jump jets off the Banshee. for that matter why didn't they take the jump jets off the Dragon Slayer, Heavy Metal, Jester. or Ember. Wish PGI would reconsider putting the jump jets back on La Malinche! its no heavy hitter by any means, its already running kind of light for weapons. 6 hardpoints in a 95 ton mech is lacking. atl least put the jumpjets back on it!!!

difference is all of those chassis had cbill versions with JJs. Same reason the only possible way you MIGHT see a Hero with ECM is if there is a stock version already carrying it.

It's a fine line, and one that has been blurred by adding missiles to the X5 and a ballistic to the Misery. But with the kneejerk QQ grognards that populate game forums ready to whinge and blubber and fill the place with venom over any slight, real, imagined or outright made up, I can see why they would be leery thereof.

[Ngamok]

SgtMagor, on 07 March 2014 - 04:07 AM, said:

there really was no reason to yank the jump jets off the Banshee. for that matter why didn't they take the jump jets off the Dragon Slayer, Heavy Metal, Jester. or Ember. Wish PGI would reconsider putting the jump jets back on La Malinche! its no heavy hitter by any means, its already running kind of light for weapons. 6 hardpoints in a 95 ton mech is lacking. atl least put the jumpjets back on it!!!

Because all those mechs you mentioned all have Jump Jets (except the K2) on the standard models. Yes, the HM has 5 where the others have 3 and 4.

Bishop beat me to it.

Edited by Ngamok, 07 March 2014 - 08:19 AM.

[SgtMagor]

La Malinche and jump jets a perfect match., they put the gauss on Misery, missiles on X5. add the jump jets to the Hero Banshee!

[Jin Ma]

ssm, on 06 March 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

I've done some preliminary re-scaling to make Alex's Banshee more like TRO art. It's extremely lazy mock-up, but shows that at least silhouette is workable:

wish PGI would rescale their mech's proportions. Especially stalker

[ssm]

Jin Ma, on 07 March 2014 - 02:22 PM, said:

wish PGI would rescale their mech's proportions. Especially stalker

Actually, I'm perfectly fine with Stalker proportions - overall model scaling might be a bit off, in comparison to rest of the mechs - but it's hard to judge without volume measurements.

Edited by ssm, 07 March 2014 - 03:53 PM.

[Jin Ma]

ssm, on 07 March 2014 - 03:08 PM, said:

Actually, I'm perfectly fine with Stalker proportions - overall model scaling might be a bit off, in comparison to rest of the mechs - but it's hard to judge without volume measurements.

http://mwomercs.com/...-and-quickdraw/

Edited by Jin Ma, 07 March 2014 - 06:33 PM.

[SweetJackal]

Jin Ma, on 07 March 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...-and-quickdraw/

Can this be done with the starting point being the Atlas? Or the Centurion?

Edit: Nevermind, I noticed how old the the source is.

Edited by SuckyJack, 07 March 2014 - 06:47 PM.

[FireSlade]

Jin Ma, on 07 March 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...-and-quickdraw/

The problem with using volume to measure how much mass something has is that it does not take into account the various materials that fill that space. While most of that is useless in MWO and Battletech in general we can safely assume that there is empty space in mechs like the cockpit, around moving parts, etc. that are filled with air that do not make the mech heavier. So by using the volume logic a mech that is supposed to be big and spacious but light should be smaller than a mech designed to be densely packed and short but heavier. Take a Balloon weigh it then fill it with air and weigh it again; it should be similar in weight but the volume used is greatly different. I forget where on this topic but a forum member posted a scale between MWO and TT sizes and what they should be and the scales came very close together, meaning for the most part PGI is doing an okay job with sizing to lore. If you want to make a case for sizing, you would be better off coming up with a new way to judge sizes than the lazy "volume = mass" argument.

[Bishop Steiner]

FireSlade, on 07 March 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

The problem with using volume to measure how much mass something has is that it does not take into account the various materials that fill that space. While most of that is useless in MWO and Battletech in general we can safely assume that there is empty space in mechs like the cockpit, around moving parts, etc. that are filled with air that do not make the mech heavier. So by using the volume logic a mech that is supposed to be big and spacious but light should be smaller than a mech designed to be densely packed and short but heavier. Take a Balloon weigh it then fill it with air and weigh it again; it should be similar in weight but the volume used is greatly different. I forget where on this topic but a forum member posted a scale between MWO and TT sizes and what they should be and the scales came very close together, meaning for the most part PGI is doing an okay job with sizing to lore. If you want to make a case for sizing, you would be better off coming up with a new way to judge sizes than the lazy "volume = mass" argument.

Yes and no.

Military vehicles are always designed around maximizing space to tonnage. Tanks of similar mass, are similar sized. (Obviously cargo and crew carriers are built for differing purposes). Mechs, as purely combat vehicles, don't generally have "dead space" . There is some variation, such as cockpits might be roomier in some than others, and yes, weapons will have differing densities. But in general, the chassis themselves should have roughly similar densities, though the more modern, the more compact, thus a mech like the Atlas, being much newer, and built of theoretically more advanced composites, should be smaller than a Mackie, and possibly the Banshee.

But as a General rule of thumb, it should give SOME idea that is roughly usable. PGIs argument that the ears of a Catapult is mostly "open space" is kind of idiotic, because no military weapons engineer will make his machine any bigger a target than absolutely mandatory. Have you seen the accessways to the drivers cubby on some tanks?

[FireSlade]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 March 2014 - 07:13 PM, said:

Yes and no.

Military vehicles are always designed around maximizing space to tonnage. Tanks of similar mass, are similar sized. (Obviously cargo and crew carriers are built for differing purposes). Mechs, as purely combat vehicles, don't generally have "dead space" . There is some variation, such as cockpits might be roomier in some than others, and yes, weapons will have differing densities. But in general, the chassis themselves should have roughly similar densities, though the more modern, the more compact, thus a mech like the Atlas, being much newer, and built of theoretically more advanced composites, should be smaller than a Mackie, and possibly the Banshee.

But as a General rule of thumb, it should give SOME idea that is roughly usable. PGIs argument that the ears of a Catapult is mostly "open space" is kind of idiotic, because no military weapons engineer will make his machine any bigger a target than absolutely mandatory. Have you seen the accessways to the drivers cubby on some tanks?

Yes this I agree with since engineering wise it makes sense. Problem is Battletech was created back in the day, by a bunch of guys that have no artistic abilities or engineering understanding so they did not envision anything that would make more sense. Instead they did what they thought would look cool and to follow lore PGI would have to follow the same scaling.

P.S. I think that we argued this same thing about 8 months ago.

[Bishop Steiner]

FireSlade, on 07 March 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

Yes this I agree with since engineering wise it makes sense. Problem is Battletech was created back in the day, by a bunch of guys that have no artistic abilities or engineering understanding so they did not envision anything that would make more sense. Instead they did what they thought would look cool and to follow lore PGI would have to follow the same scaling.

P.S. I think that we argued this same thing about 8 months ago.

good debates should be necro'd from time to time.

[Strum Wealh]

Jin Ma, on 07 March 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...-and-quickdraw/

However, vehicles (such as tanks) of radically different mass can be similarly-sized - as an example, compare the M4 Sherman to the Tiger I.

M4 Sherman

• mass: 30.3 metric tons
  
• hull length: 5.84 meters
  
• hull width: 2.62 meters
  
• height: 2.74 meters

Tiger I

• mass: 56.9 metric tons
  
• hull length: 6.316 meters meters
  
• hull width: 3.70 meters
  
• height: 3.0 meters

The Tiger is 87% heavier (a difference of 26.6 tons) than the Sherman, despite being only 0.476 meters (1.56 feet) longer, 1.08 meters (3.54 feet) wider, and 0.26 meters (0.85 feet) taller.

By contrast, the M1 Abrams (with a mass of 61.3 metric tons, a hull length of 7.93 meters, a hull width of 3.66 meters, a height of 2.44 meters, and a crew requirement of 4 rather than 5 for the Tiger & the Sherman) is only 7.7% heavier than the Tiger, but the Abrams is 0.52 meters shorter length-wise, 0.04 meters narrower, and 0.56 meters shorter height-wise.
Alternatively: the Abrams is 2.09 meters longer than the Sherman, 1.04 meters wider than the Sherman, and 0.3 meters shorter (height-wise) than the Sherman, despite being more than twice the mass.

Just because the Catapult is ~76% of the mass of the Stalker DOES NOT mean that the Catapult should be 76% of the length/width/height of the Stalker.

[M0RG0TH]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 March 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

ok, seriously, please learn the issue and devs responses.

We will never see a Marauder in this game, unless Harmony Gold goes out of business. Not the Unseen, not a reseen. Russ has stated such, categorically. Sorry to smash your dreams, but better that than pining for the impossible.

Hey, no offense, it was just my opinion. Or better I have to say my statement for the Marauder, or the Warhammer is just a wish.
Like opinions are just like a**holes, everyone has one! And last but not least, never say never.