Jump to content

Urbanmech Orthos Adjustments - Vote Here


121 replies to this topic

#21 Ngamok

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 5,033 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationLafayette, IN

Posted 24 January 2015 - 07:59 AM

#4

#5 I like the legs better.

Edited by Ngamok, 24 January 2015 - 09:05 AM.


#22 Odanan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 8,206 posts
  • LocationBrazil

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:06 AM

View PostSaobh, on 24 January 2015 - 07:38 AM, said:

added my variation (#5) to the line up to see how it fit (would prbly be better a tad smaller in general yet keeping a bulkier upper torso)


Posted Image

Your version looks very good and it is the closest one to the original design. the problem is: I think there will clipping issues with the waist. (they had to fix that in the Stalker, for instance)

Edited by Odanan, 24 January 2015 - 08:09 AM.


#23 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,516 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:09 AM

2

#24 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,516 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:14 AM

maybe 5 its it's considered

#25 STEF_

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nocturnal
  • The Nocturnal
  • 5,443 posts
  • Locationmy cockpit

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:18 AM

Esthetically speaking, the n°4.
Functionally speaking, the n°2.

So, here it is: I would like the n° 2, but the cockpit of n°4... .

edit: the worse: n°1..... :\

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 24 January 2015 - 08:20 AM.


#26 Lord Perversor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,815 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in New Aragon

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:21 AM

The biggest issue it's the upper torso design wich makes it sligthy ugly.

Odanan fix proves all it needs it's a rounded dome head ( also variant 5 does) and it wins a hell lot more aesthetically.

This said i would put my vote as 2 ( Bishops's size) with 4 torso ( Odanan's domehead) as the ultimate underdog trashcan killer of doom.

Edited by Lord Perversor, 24 January 2015 - 08:22 AM.


#27 AntiCitizenJuan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,440 posts
  • LocationIn your base, killing your dudes

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:24 AM

4 or 5 if its added

#28 GreyNovember

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 1,349 posts

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:31 AM

5 Looks brilliant. 2 For the practicality.

#29 Lily from animove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 13,891 posts
  • LocationOn a dropship to Terra

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:36 AM

i would actually preffer saobh version

Posted Image

#30 Funky Bacon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 629 posts

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:36 AM

Slim frame = Harder to hit during horizontal movement.

#31 Triordinant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,495 posts
  • LocationThe Dark Side of the Moon

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:40 AM

2

#32 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:45 AM

View PostSaobh, on 24 January 2015 - 07:38 AM, said:

Posted Image

compared to the base miniature

Posted Image


Much as I love it... You do realize the issue with the original Urbanmech, right?
Zero torso twist; it is a twist-less mech. This is why it had so many viewports for situational awareness, it couldn't twist at all. (The reason we're getting 360 degree torso twist is to make up for not being able to shoot behind ourselves by flipping the arms). Thus using that design would lead to the clipping issues.

(Trust me, I'd love to have twist-less mechs; the Jenner would be such a harder target to hit if it wasn't forcefully given a torso. The Blackhawk would be a fair bit better in my opinion too given how much smaller the side torsos would be if the legs were hooked to the shoulders as they should have been... But sadly, yeah.)

I like 5 and 4's width. Bit partial on 2 because I believe an Urbanmech should be around 6 to 8 meters tall.
Of course, in this game 8 meters tall would make it shorter than the Locust...due to the exaggerated heights (why is a 13-ish meter tall Atlas 17 meters tall? The Hunchback in MWO is literally the height an Atlas is supposed to be in BT, and the Hunchback is meant to be about the size of the Commando in MWO, with the Commando being roughly the same height [and center mounted in the head rather than off to the side). o.O; But I don't think we'll have rescales of all the mechs.

Edited by Koniving, 24 January 2015 - 08:52 AM.


#33 Cementi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 779 posts

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:58 AM

#2 , honestly they all look good but if your going to make it any wider it must be as short as possible to be viable, otherwise it will be as easy to hit as clan lights.

#34 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 24 January 2015 - 09:05 AM

View PostOdanan, on 24 January 2015 - 05:09 AM, said:

So the UrbanMech Orthos was released and we are all thrilled with the Urbie finally showing up in the game.

Posted Image

But as some of us pointed out, the official UrbanMech looks too slim and tall.

Here are some suggestions for making it more "Urbie-like":

Posted Image

Vote which one you think is best:

1- Official art.
2- Bishop Steiner's suggestion.
3- Spades Kincaid's suggestion.
4- Odanan's suggestion.
EDIT:
5- Merged the #4 with the design proposed by SAOBH.

Might also suggest, on your poll, make it something like ; "which version is your favorite? Second Favorite, third? etc. With each being assigned a value of 1-4.

Then which ever gets highest total number of points, would reasonably, be the "most popular" or , more to point, most agreed upon.

Also, scrap this, and redo it in feature suggestions. You can add a poll there.

On this thread though, for me I rank them:

2, 4, 5, 3, 1

#35 Bloodweaver

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 890 posts

Posted 24 January 2015 - 09:09 AM

FIVE! Fivefivefivefivefive!!! It's perfect. Just fix the uppermost part of the legs so they don't clip into the torso and you're golden...

View PostKoniving, on 24 January 2015 - 08:45 AM, said:

I like 5 and 4's width. Bit partial on 2 because I believe an Urbanmech should be around 6 to 8 meters tall.

View PostCementi, on 24 January 2015 - 08:58 AM, said:

#2 , honestly they all look good but if your going to make it any wider it must be as short as possible to be viable, otherwise it will be as easy to hit as clan lights.

Any of the models can be scaled to any height. Only the relative proportions matter.

View PostKoniving, on 24 January 2015 - 08:45 AM, said:

...the Commando being roughly the same height [and center mounted in the head rather than off to the side)

I've read that the Commando's original art was not, in fact, meant to show an off-set cockpit. It's simply supposed to be showing the Commando's head being turned to the side, looking over its left shoulder. Over time, the misunderstanding that it had a weird off-set cockpit with a tilted-helmet-like dome on the other side became such a common assumption that it simply became official.

Edited by Bloodweaver, 24 January 2015 - 09:12 AM.


#36 DEN_Ninja

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 1,097 posts
  • LocationCrossing, Draconis March

Posted 24 January 2015 - 09:20 AM

Five is pretty nice tbh

#37 Bartholomew bartholomew

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 1,250 posts
  • LocationInner sphere drop point

Posted 24 January 2015 - 09:27 AM

5, but glad we are getting it no matter what.

#38 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 24 January 2015 - 09:37 AM

View PostBloodweaver, on 24 January 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

I've read that the Commando's original art was not, in fact, meant to show an off-set cockpit. It's simply supposed to be showing the Commando's head being turned to the side, looking over its left shoulder. Over time, the misunderstanding that it had a weird off-set cockpit with a tilted-helmet-like dome on the other side became such a common assumption that it simply became official.


I'm aware.
In Mechwarrior 2 Mercs, the cockpit is shown correctly in the opening cinematic.

Specifically it is supposed to be a Commando 1-C but is sporting twin AC/2s for some reason (so they did something right and something wrong, go figure!)

#39 Lily from animove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 13,891 posts
  • LocationOn a dropship to Terra

Posted 24 January 2015 - 09:38 AM

vote for number 5

View PostFunky Bacon, on 24 January 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

Slim frame = Harder to hit during horizontal movement.


people didn't wanted an urban mech for being awesome meta pro's we wanted the urbie for being an urbie, making it slim and making it less looking like an urbie is not what people wanted. If we want this we play firestarter or commando

Edited by Lily from animove, 24 January 2015 - 09:39 AM.


#40 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 24 January 2015 - 09:40 AM

View PostFunky Bacon, on 24 January 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

Slim frame = Harder to hit during horizontal movement.

which is why #2 never adjusted the width. It's just as wide as the original, but 25% (approximately) shorter. Less target area, period.





7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users