43 replies to this topic

[Talynn DeRaa]

Ryoken, on 21 February 2015 - 02:04 AM, said:

I agree that the legs are to tall.

I know the original TRO designs geometry does not allow functional legs and torso twist so it is a good thing they changed it. But they definitively should make the legs shorter.

Or just make it more squat, as Destructicus said previously.

[KuroNyra]

DV McKenna, on 21 February 2015 - 01:53 AM, said:

It is too tall in that placeholder artwork.

He's hoping the actual artwork is smaller and squat, it will already be fairly wide like the Nova and suffer terrible hitboxes because of its shape.

Else imagine how the Bushwacker will look ...........

Bushwacker? Sorry but what is a Bushwacker? I only know about the X-Wing with leg.

[Sjorpha]

I predict it will primarily be a dual gauss nightmare, especially since the missile pods will disappear without missiles giving it minimal exposure when hillpeeking. Jagermech on steroids.

[Ursh]

Sjorpha, on 21 February 2015 - 04:05 AM, said:

I predict it will primarily be a dual gauss nightmare, especially since the missile pods will disappear without missiles giving it minimal exposure when hillpeeking. Jagermech on steroids.

I think you can do some mid and close range loadouts that will be straight up bullies to any mechs who round the corner, as well.

2xCUAC10, 2xCERML, 2xCSRM4 mid-short pretty hate machine
2xCUAC5, 2xCLPL midrange pretty hate machine

[kapusta11]

Sjorpha, on 21 February 2015 - 04:05 AM, said:

I predict it will primarily be a dual gauss nightmare, especially since the missile pods will disappear without missiles giving it minimal exposure when hillpeeking. Jagermech on steroids.

It won't be able to carry enough ammo, only 28.5 29 tons of pod space.

Edited by kapusta11, 21 February 2015 - 04:44 AM.

[Talynn DeRaa]

Ursh, on 21 February 2015 - 04:14 AM, said:

I think you can do some mid and close range loadouts that will be straight up bullies to any mechs who round the corner, as well.

2xCUAC10, 2xCERML, 2xCSRM4 mid-short pretty hate machine
2xCUAC5, 2xCLPL midrange pretty hate machine

There is at least 50 different ways to build a Cauldron Born with enough significant difference that will still be insanely combat effective.

kapusta11, on 21 February 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:

It won't be able to carry enough ammo, only 28.5 29 tons of pod space.

That 29 tons of pod space is good for something. Hell, 5 tons of Gauss Ammo across two Gauss Rifles is more than enough if you're an excellent shot. And if that doesn't work out, you could just go for 1 Gauss Rifle and 3 ER Large Lasers all located above the CT which would allow it to hit things with very minimal exposure.

A situation like that would benefit from the Cauldron Born having a sort of tall profile, but I am still in hopes it will be more squat to adhere to its classic Low-Profile design.

[Strum Wealh]

KuroNyra, on 21 February 2015 - 02:55 AM, said:

Bushwacker? Sorry but what is a Bushwacker? I only know about the X-Wing with leg.

So, the only 'Mech known to you is the Raven?

Strum Wealh, on 20 January 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

X-Wing cockpit:


Raven cockpit:


X-Wing exterior:


Raven exterior:

[Glaive-]

Strum Wealh, on 21 February 2015 - 02:08 PM, said:

So, the only 'Mech known to you is the Raven?

I can not believe I have never noticed that.

[Accused]

I will say this, officially speaking in the forums sense, we are complaining about the legs, PGI does know about it, and the concept art isn';t even finished so no real reason not to fix it now right?

[Strum Wealh]

Destructicus, on 21 February 2015 - 12:29 AM, said:

Take a look at classic Mad dogs compared to the MWO mad dog
the reason the mad dog looks so awkward is because the legs aren't bent enough
It's one of those things you can't unsee.

It's mostly aesthetics, and the mistaken notion that reverse-joint legs would somehow inherit the advantages of digitigrade legs seen in nature (see ostriches) over plantigrade legs (see humans & human gait).

In practice, the reverse-joint 'Mechs (e.g. Catapult, Mad Cat, Vulture, etc) are actually plantigrades (that is, they stand & walk on the foot rather than "on its toes").

In reality, the "classic" semi-crouching reverse-joint design (see old BT/MW art) is actually an unwise design choice from a robotics design standpoint; for it to actually work well, the weight bearing servos to be aligned such that the weight of the finished unit in a standing position is directed vertically through them (see here, here, and here).

Quote

Reverse knee is fine; it doesn't really matter which way the knee bends, it's mostly just aesthetics. What does matter is how the legs are aligned when weight is placed on them, and this is the problem that most people building 'reverse knee walkers' run into. Think about it, walking around with your knees bent is harder than walking with them mostly straight.

Mechwarrior and other mecha genres have polluted our minds with reverse knee walkers. Sure it looks pretty cool for them to have a huge angle in the knee bend, but it's far from efficient. The only bonus to it is that it lowers your COG. Ideally, you want all of your weight bearing servos to be aligned somewhat like this:

In other words: for the Vulture et al to actually work, they would necessarily have to have the more upright posture that PGI gave them in MWO (rather than the crouched stance often seen in classic BattleTech artwork), and all of the calls from some players to have the MWO reverse-joint 'Mechs be have a more crouched/squatting stance (which puts the joints & servos out of alignment) actually represents the "wrong" way to do it.

Between needing the legs to be more straight/upright & needing to add a torso joint, there was no realistic hope of the MWO Cauldron-Born being anywhere near as (heightwose) short as the original artwork & minis would have suggested.
The best to be hoped for is that the MWO Cauldron-Born is scaled appropriately (in terms of overall volume, surface area, and linear dimensions) relative to the other 'Mechs.

[Nightshade24]

Accused, on 21 February 2015 - 03:02 PM, said:

I will say this, officially speaking in the forums sense, we are complaining about the legs, PGI does know about it, and the concept art isn';t even finished so no real reason not to fix it now right?

actually it is finished... watch the town hall mate.

They just didn't show it for the factor around the "Early adoption" package. Buying these mechs without knowing what they look like? here get a 4th variant for free.

[151st Light Horse Regiment]

tbh, design has never been a mwo strongpoint.

look at how fat and stupid the timber looks when running at more than 50% speed,

[Widowmaker1981]

Being tall is no problem for a mech in and of itself, its only a problem if the weapons are mounted low - which they arent. I think this mech is going to make all sorts of good builds (LRM80 troll build with 9 tons of ammo is even doable lol)

[Zordicron]

It MUST be made short, IMO it should be something like top of mech is equal height to the very bottom edge of cockpit glass on TBR.

It is also not THAT wide, I know it is mostly a perception thing- the arms are angled downward just enough to squeeze the shoulder weapon pods in, and they need to be at an angle to fit also. This is done specifically to keep the model from being a sideways whale. The MW3 model is decieving for this, depending on which way you look at it. In the game, from memory, it was barely wider then a Summoner. The arms stick out the sides, but not really out, it is hard to describe, they are somewhat tucked under- hence that angle, you can see it in OP's screencap.

it should have stout, beefier looking legs then say a Vulture or a Catapult, like a better plated Phract legs maybe, though the stance of a Cataphract is also incorrect for an Ebon Jaguar.

The arm pods should be substantial. From the front, the mech should perform like a Stalker, where it is easy to spread dmg to all torsos and arms and even legs. From the side, the CT should be easier to hit, EXCEPT the arms should block a decent amount of the mech. This would translate into MWO both in looks, and in hitbox performance as per the lore, where dmg spreads very well(with some pilot help) allowing it to keep on chugging.

IMO, I would rather see the twist range limited some to prevent clipping issues over having the mech be made into a too tall Jones version. Heck from what I remember in MW3, the left to right of both the torso and even arms was limited compared to many of the mechs, and then they gave it a decent turn rate instead so you could track targets well enough, you just couldnt strafe as well.


I really really hope they don't cop out and take some shortcut like slap a new torso on top of some catapult legs. The mech deserves a new model/wire frame/etc. besides, if they can make a new low slung model, they could base the Suprnova on it(similar in that it is shorter, not that wide, and long) -bigger, and a Bushwacker(similar again) - smaller. it would make the new mech GOOD, and provide for those labor shortcuts down the road, as opposed to a shortcut now that makes the mech mediocre.

Thats my 2 cents anyway.

[Talynn DeRaa]

151st Light Horse Regiment, on 21 February 2015 - 03:20 PM, said:

tbh, design has never been a mwo strongpoint.

look at how fat and stupid the timber looks when running at more than 50% speed,

The Timber Wolf / Mad Cat does look like it waddles a little when it moves at high speed...But then again its always looked like that in any MW game, and it was just silly looking in MW4 in general.

Widowmaker1981, on 21 February 2015 - 03:28 PM, said:

Being tall is no problem for a mech in and of itself, its only a problem if the weapons are mounted low - which they arent. I think this mech is going to make all sorts of good builds (LRM80 troll build with 9 tons of ammo is even doable lol)

Low mounted weapons can be the deal breaker for a lot of mechs in MWO. I know for me the Nova was such a wonderful concept but so poorly executed because of just how -low- some of its energy hardpoints were. However, it does seem the Cauldron Born / Ebon Jaguar will have all of its weapons level, or even higher than the cockpit, which has always been one of its main-staying features.

I still hope it will retain its low profile, though.

[Ragtag soldier]

Strum Wealh, on 21 February 2015 - 03:18 PM, said:

In reality, the "classic" semi-crouching reverse-joint design (see old BT/MW art) is actually an unwise design choice from a robotics design standpoint; for it to actually work well, the weight bearing servos-

Battlemechs do not use servos in that capacity. they use a material called myomer, which behaves much like muscle fiber contracting when a current is run through it. provided the weight of the 'mech design is balanced properly, the weight is still carried properly in the angle-knee designs (thought likely with installed counterbalances) additionally, several reverse-knee 'mech designs are originally digitigrade. complain to MWO's art team for those faffups.

[MauttyKoray]

Going by the silhouette, what I see wrong with it is the legs. They're too er...'tall', egh...that's not quite right. The legs look the right length, size, etc. But, it doesn't look 'crouched' enough if that makes any sense. I hope they 'crouch' it down more and make the legs more bent.

[Shatara]

Strum Wealh, on 21 February 2015 - 03:18 PM, said:

all of the calls from some players to have the MWO reverse-joint 'Mechs be have a more crouched/squatting stance (which puts the joints & servos out of alignment) actually represents the "wrong" way to do it.

To be fair, putting legs on your tank is already the "wrong" way to do it. I prefer my fantasy robots to look predatory, rather than like mutated ballerinas.

[Strum Wealh]

Ragtag soldier, on 21 February 2015 - 04:04 PM, said:

Battlemechs do not use servos in that capacity. they use a material called myomer, which behaves much like muscle fiber contracting when a current is run through it. provided the weight of the 'mech design is balanced properly, the weight is still carried properly in the angle-knee designs (thought likely with installed counterbalances) additionally, several reverse-knee 'mech designs are originally digitigrade. complain to MWO's art team for those faffups.

The alignment principle with regard to the joints is still the same - the "super-squatty" stance simply doesn't work as well (if at all, at the weights being discussed) as more upright stance.
(Also, myomer bundles are linear actuators used to provide provides position control through commands & feedback put through the joint's Motor Control Unit (TechManual, pg. 32), which also puts them under the technical definition of servomechanism... )

Also, which specific reverse-joint 'Mechs are you claiming to have originally been digitigrades (e.g. walking on the balls of their feet) in BT that aren't digitigrades in MWO?

[Sniper09121986]

Talynn DeRaa, on 21 February 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Low mounted weapons can be the deal breaker for a lot of mechs in MWO. I know for me the Nova was such a wonderful concept but so poorly executed because of just how -low- some of its energy hardpoints were. However, it does seem the Cauldron Born / Ebon Jaguar will have all of its weapons level, or even higher than the cockpit, which has always been one of its main-staying features.

I still hope it will retain its low profile, though.

I am interested in that as well. I see the energy slot in LT under the armpit in T-Wolf fashion, but what about ballistics? Would it be possible to stuff a Gauss up on the roof to get something like MAD-4S How was it done in previous games?