182 replies to this topic

[HARDKOR]

I like it short, but I think it needs boobs, too.

[Ultimax]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 January 2015 - 07:00 PM, said:

What say you guys?

The concept model would be preferable from a survivability standpoint.

If the Urbie ends up with something like a 180 max engine, then it will be a relatively easy target to hit - and while you generally want to leg lights, if they are that fat, and short and have XL - you can often put a Gauss round through it, or watch it catch a lot of missiles or fire from the sides even while it torso twists.


I understand what you're getting at, but we have no end of mechs that people continue to complain about their hitboxes - PGI would be wise to tweak this a touch so it's not a death trap.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 23 January 2015 - 08:40 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ultimatum X, on 23 January 2015 - 08:40 PM, said:

The concept model would be preferable from a survivability standpoint.

If the Urbie ends up with something like a 180 max engine, then it will be a relatively easy target to hit - and while you generally want to leg lights, if they are that fat, and short and have XL - you can often put a Gauss round through it, or watch it catch a lot of missiles or fire from the sides even while it torso twists.


I understand what you're getting at, but we have no end of mechs that people continue to complain about their hitboxes - PGI would be wise to tweak this a touch so it's not a death trap.

oh, please.

What care you about it's survivability.


Plus, it'll be shorter than a Commando. It won't be that easy a target.

As for more survivable? Newsflash?

They are the exact same width, one is merely shorter. So by being the same width AND taller, it would be more survivable?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 January 2015 - 09:16 PM, said:

They are the exact same width, one is merely shorter. So by being the same width AND taller, it would be more survivable?

Screw survivability, ditch the waist. Its supposed to be a walking trashcan

[Ultimax]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 January 2015 - 09:16 PM, said:

oh, please.

What care you about it's survivability.


Plus, it'll be shorter than a Commando. It won't be that easy a target.

As for more survivable? Newsflash?

They are the exact same width, one is merely shorter. So by being the same width AND taller, it would be more survivable?

Sorry you're right. Make it short and squat, and less cool looking with less dead space and probably easier to hit.


If you don't like opinions contrary to your own, maybe stop asking questions?

Edited by Ultimatum X, 24 January 2015 - 03:56 AM.

[Brody319]

If we can make it just a bit smaller than the Commando then we can make the Urbie a submarine

[FupDup]

Ultimatum X, on 23 January 2015 - 09:38 PM, said:

Sorry you're right. Make it short and squat, and less cooling looking with less dead space and probably easier to hit.


If you don't like opinions contrary to your own, maybe stop asking questions?

Here's his comparison photo from the first page:



The one on the right doesn't look to be actually wider than the one on the left, it's just shorter while keeping approximately the same width. So if my eyes aren't deceiving me, that means less overall surface area, which one would expect to mean a lower probability of a shot connecting?

Even if it might be a little bit wider (again, my eyes have a hard time telling the difference) the loss of vertical surface area is a lot greater than the gain of horizontal surface area.

Brody319, on 23 January 2015 - 09:42 PM, said:

If we can make it just a bit smaller than the Commando then we can make the Urbie a submarine

And paint it yellow.

Edited by FupDup, 23 January 2015 - 09:46 PM.

[Brody319]

FupDup, on 23 January 2015 - 09:45 PM, said:

And paint it yellow.

No! No! none of that!
we will paint it Red.

[Utilyan]

I think this would be a more fair comparison. (same height) Else we will always pick the shorter!
Remember back when you did something similar with your v1 v2 urb? I liked v1 then too.





Also check out v1's legs on v2's body.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ultimatum X, on 23 January 2015 - 09:38 PM, said:

Sorry you're right. Make it short and squat, and less cooling looking with less dead space and probably easier to hit.


If you don't like opinions contrary to your own, maybe stop asking questions?

Nope, I ask you to make sense.

Usually you do. On this? You dont. It's the same width. that "dead space" is millimetric along the dome, and all but non existent anywhere else.

We aren't talking the Centurion with it's funky torso geometry.

In this instance, I throw it back, because, you are demonstrably, wrong about the "issue".

FupDup, on 23 January 2015 - 09:45 PM, said:

Here's his comparison photo from the first page:



The one on the right doesn't look to be actually wider than the one on the left, it's just shorter while keeping approximately the same width. So if my eyes aren't deceiving me, that means less overall surface area, which one would expect to mean a lower probability of a shot connecting?

Even if it might be a little bit wider (again, my eyes have a hard time telling the difference) the loss of vertical surface area is a lot greater than the gain of horizontal surface area.


And paint it yellow.

it's 100% the exact same width, and the "dead" areas are all but non existent. It's an optical illusion that it gets wider, but whatever.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 23 January 2015 - 10:08 PM.

[Gallowglas]

If we're going by nostalgia and lore, definitely needs more squish.

[Brody319]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 January 2015 - 10:08 PM, said:

Nope, I ask you to make sense.

Usually you do. On this? You dont. It's the same width. that "dead space" is millimetric along the dome, and all but non existent anywhere else.

We aren't talking the Centurion with it's funky torso geometry.

In this instance, I throw it back, because, you are demonstrably, wrong about the "issue".


it's 100% the exact same width, and the "dead" areas are all but non existent. It's an optical illusion that it gets wider, but whatever.

you are just going to need to overlay the tops together, because I see a shorter fatter urbie vs the normal one PGI created.

[Bishop Steiner]

Brody319, on 23 January 2015 - 10:11 PM, said:

you are just going to need to overlay the tops together, because I see a shorter fatter urbie vs the normal one PGI created.

go for it.

I'm used to people not having any ability to eye proportion, lol.



Lookie there..the guy who did the editing knows what he is talking about. (Because...ya know, I only adjusted the vertical scale, not horizontal?)

So same width, tiny size, "dead zones" that are within 10% of each other, and total reduction of almost 25% in height...and that is going to make it LESS survivable?

*SMH*

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 23 January 2015 - 10:24 PM.

[Gallowglas]

Brody319, on 23 January 2015 - 10:11 PM, said:

you are just going to need to overlay the tops together, because I see a shorter fatter urbie vs the normal one PGI created.

It looks that way only because the height was asymmetrically reduced in several locations. If you look at the graphing blocks, it looks to be the exact same width.

[Utilyan]

Brody319, on 23 January 2015 - 09:42 PM, said:

If we can make it just a bit smaller than the Commando then we can make the Urbie a submarine

lol like in the forest colony hole?

In previous games he was shorter then commando. So maybe he ought to be, But I've seen where locust ought to be the tallest light, like a medium.

Cicada was competitor to locust. Can you imagine a cicada size of a locust.....scary.

[Bloodweaver]

Honestly, I would be very surprised if the Urbanmech's in-game model is NOT closer to your preferred stumpier version. Take another look at the original artworks done by Iglesias for pretty much all the game's mechs, and compare them to those mechs' in-game models. Most of the in-game 'mechs are waaay fatter than in the concept art, and even some of the orthos(Dragon, for example).. The Trebuchet, Awesome, and especially Centurion are a few of the more noticeable examples. So while I agree the Urbanmech should be a bit stumpier, I'd be surprised if it doesn't turn out to be exactly that once it shows up. And for once, this would be a GOOD thing.

[Matthew Ace]

Bishop is spot-on. They both take up roughly 15 squares in width. Would be interested in having scaling of the weapons have circles instead of ovals for barrels/laser lenses.

Wonder how it'll look if width is adjusted from the side too. Hmm.

People, I have a proposal; if you prefer the stubby beer/trash can more, can we pester overwhelmingly get Russ's attention on this asap? Going by Bishop's concern about the height gameplay-wise, it would probably help it too.

Edited by Matthew Ace, 23 January 2015 - 10:44 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Bloodweaver, on 23 January 2015 - 10:18 PM, said:

Honestly, I would be very surprised if the Urbanmech's in-game model is NOT closer to your preferred stumpier version. Take another look at the original artworks done by Iglesias for pretty much all the game's mechs, and compare them to those mechs' in-game models. Most of the in-game 'mechs are waaay fatter than in the concept art, and even some of the orthos(Dragon, for example).. The Trebuchet, Awesome, and especially Centurion are a few of the more noticeable examples. So while I agree the Urbanmech should be a bit stumpier, I'd be surprised if it doesn't turn out to be exactly that once it shows up. And for once, this would be a GOOD thing.

width wise, you are correct. But they also tend to get saddled with crazy height. My desired proportions getting the same height as a Firestarter? Yeah, it's toast.

THAT is my concern. Since it isn't even started yet (presumably) I guess I have some slim, delusional, hope to influence the modeling before it starts.

Since end of the day, speed and hardpoints aside, it's the model and hitboxes that truly determine a unit's viability in this game.

Utilyan, on 23 January 2015 - 09:56 PM, said:

I think this would be a more fair comparison. (same height) Else we will always pick the shorter!
Remember back when you did something similar with your v1 v2 urb? I liked v1 then too.





Also check out v1's legs on v2's body.

thing is, I want to make sure it's short. The proportions Alex has given it, it is likely to be tall for mass. Hence my intentionally making it shorter, NOT wider.

Gallowglas, on 23 January 2015 - 10:16 PM, said:

It looks that way only because the height was asymmetrically reduced in several locations. If you look at the graphing blocks, it looks to be the exact same width.

*gives the man a cookie*

Exactly, as was explained, in depth, in the OP.

[Brody319]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 January 2015 - 10:13 PM, said:

go for it.

I'm used to people not having any ability to eye proportion, lol.

Gallowglas, on 23 January 2015 - 10:16 PM, said:

It looks that way only because the height was asymmetrically reduced in several locations. If you look at the graphing blocks, it looks to be the exact same width.

I have really bad eye sight. My eye doctor says on a scale of 1-10 of needing glasses I'm at a 15.



anyway, I tried my best and I think I found where some of my issue comes up



The top of the urbie's size has changed with the legs. I don't mind the top of the urbie, I would be fine if the legs were shorter and fatter, just the top I think is fine.

damn it bishop! don't tell me "go for it" then do it yourself! Makes me look inferior!

Edited by Brody319, 23 January 2015 - 10:34 PM.

[Utilyan]

I think we should get random sized urbanmechs........with serial#z and rights to sell them to other players.

And bishop ......its random so look when you get your first urb......they give you like one of them MechCommander urbs lol