181 replies to this topic

[Bloodweaver]

Tarogato, on 19 April 2015 - 08:00 AM, said:

Thank you! There is actually a reason I don't suggest that change, however. One, it may require alterations to the actual model - changes more sophisticated than simply rescaling certain elements or altering the angle where two elements meet (i.e., knee joint, hip joint, etc.) Two, it's actually a self-balancing mechanism: the Cauldy has some pretty sexy high mounts that offer an incredible ridge-peeking advantage, you could mount a gauss or three large lasers onto that pod. The higher set the arms are, the more betterer the chassis becomes at ridge-peeking, and since it has a rather low-mounted cockpit, the advantage would be very noticeable. Having the arms slug lower is an effective way to mitigate this advantage and keep things in balance.

I get the difficult of modeling issue. That makes sense. Better to convince PGI to fix the easy stuff than to fail in convincing them to change anything at all. Still, it's an improvement. Maybe PGI would only be convinced to change the legs' length and absolutely nothing else, not even their stance. Doesn't mean we shouldn't mention the rest of the possible improvements. I think they're perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what is and isn't "too hard." Unfortunately, their track record shows that MOST things fall under that umbrella :/

The balance issue, though, I don't accept as being a serious problem. Not now that we have quirks. All you'd need to do is give the CB an atrocious acceleration/deceleration rate via negative quirks, and its ability to crest hills becomes strongly mitigated by an inability to get out of the way once people start returning fire.

[Tarogato]

LordBraxton, on 19 April 2015 - 08:01 AM, said:

RedDragon, on 19 April 2015 - 07:55 AM, said:

And why should they when people will buy it either way?

/thread

People will still buy it, but there are people who said they changed their minds already or are second guessing whether or not they will purchase and are waiting to see if it turns out better. If you refer to the links I put in the OP, you'll see that there are more people like this:


(name blurred out of courtesy, but it isn't hard to find his post, and multiple people have already upvoted him... )

---

Also, based on the sheer amount of positive feedback my suggestion is receiving so far (btw, I don't take complete credit for it, Tennex and others also played a part), it stands a fair chance at getting revised because it's still in the "early" stages of development. If PGI acknowledges the feedback and makes some adjustments at all, I think it would be a big win for both the community and a great boon to PGI's reputation.

Edited by Tarogato, 19 April 2015 - 08:25 AM.

[Bloodweaver]

Tarogato, on 19 April 2015 - 08:10 AM, said:

People will still buy it, but there are people who said they changed their minds already or are second guessing whether or not they will purchase and are waiting to see if it turns out better.

You can count me in that group.

[jay35]

Excellent thread, Tarogato. Here's hoping PGI decides to humor the core fanbase and adapt the model to make it more squat and more aggressive looking. It seems like such an easy change, provided the walking animation isn't too challenging.

[Donner]

Yes, it needs to be fixed.

[kapusta11]

Bloodweaver, on 19 April 2015 - 08:04 AM, said:

Nonsense. Not only can it be done, since this is a game and real life rules do not apply, but it already has been done:

You saw how it's animated? The leg swing amplitude is way too high to look at least somewhat beliveable.

Edited by kapusta11, 19 April 2015 - 08:31 AM.

[Tarogato]

jay35, on 19 April 2015 - 08:21 AM, said:

Excellent thread, Tarogato. Here's hoping PGI decides to humor the core fanbase and adapt the model to make it more squat and more aggressive looking. It seems like such an easy change, provided the walking animation isn't too challenging.

Yup, the animation is the real snag. That will probably be the first thing brought up if any devs respond. I do really hope that it can be worked around, however. A little bit of effort here can be applied to the Mad Dog as well, since it suffers a similar plight, albeit not as drastically.

Also, the walking animation for the King Crab turned out fine. It has perhaps a bit too much struttin-datass-syndrome to it, but I think it shows that it's at least a manageable and tenable option that can perhaps be tuned so as to not be so ribidonkadonkulous. (I'm getting out of hand with inventing words today, aren't I?)

Edited by Tarogato, 19 April 2015 - 08:33 AM.

[Ultimax]

Tarogato, on 19 April 2015 - 07:38 AM, said:

1. If the game balance ramifications are truly the driving force behind abandoning the unique low profile this chassis is renowned for, and if its low profile truly does offer that significant of an advantage, then the movement attributes of the chassis can be assigned as appropriate. Turning rate, torso twist amount, and yaw/pitch rates could be made to compensate for the inherent advantages the chassis has as a result of its low profile.

IMO this is a bad direction.


Things like quirks are able to cushion bad geometry or slightly down-tweak amazing geometry - but there are limits to what is realistic.



The only change you have in the thread that I like is moving the fuselage forward.


The rest I don't agree with.

[Armorine]

He'll yes!!!!!

[Tarogato]

Ultimatum X, on 19 April 2015 - 08:33 AM, said:

IMO this is a bad direction.

Things like quirks are able to cushion bad geometry or slightly down-tweak amazing geometry - but there are limits to what is realistic.

Thanks for the feedback. I didn't actually mention the word "quirks" specifically, because then people immediately assume this means weapons heat and cooldowns, and other offensive attributes. Chassis like the Hellbringer and Stalker have poor torso twist radius and other characteristics that are part of the defined characteristics and base stats of the chassis. The offensive quirks, high mounts, and utility of these chassis make up for that particular downside, much in the way that the EBJ's high mounts, pod space, and low profile could be the advantage that makes up for a (carefully balanced!) mobility deficiency.

The Cauldron Born in the original art had zero torso twist capability. While a bit ridiculous and shortsighted of a design flaw, it would be a nice nod to the source material of the Cauldron Born of MWO at least had a limited torso twist radius. Definitely nothing as drastic as the worst Stalkers, but it definitely shouldn't be as nimble as a Timberwolf. Do you find these trade offs too detrimental? It doesn't seem to hurt many of the strong chassis we have already.

Edited by Tarogato, 19 April 2015 - 08:48 AM.

[Bloodweaver]

kapusta11, on 19 April 2015 - 08:29 AM, said:

You saw how it's animated? The leg swing amplitude is way too high to look at least somewhat beliveable.

You can get a decent (if low-resolution) look at the CB's running animation in MW3 starting here. Keep on eye on the lower-left corner for when the player targets an enemy CB. Keep watching until it gets completely destroyed (not just knocked down) so that you get a good side view of it.

Looks fine to me. And as I've said before, it's not as if wonky running animations are something PGI has ever avoided in the past.

Edited by Bloodweaver, 19 April 2015 - 08:59 AM.

[ChapeL]

Absolutely agree with the original post. This thing cannot be as tall as a Hellbringer ( even is same weight ) because it is much more wide. As it stands it risks being larger than it's weight class should be ... much like the Nova.

[Deathlike]

Tarogato, on 19 April 2015 - 08:43 AM, said:

Thanks for the feedback. I didn't actually mention the word "quirks" specifically, because then people immediately assume this means weapons heat and cooldowns, and other offensive attributes. Chassis like the Hellbringer and Stalker have poor torso twist radius and other characteristics that are part of the defined characteristics and base stats of the chassis. The offensive quirks, high mounts, and utility of these chassis make up for that particular downside, much in the way that the EBJ's high mounts, pod space, and low profile could be the advantage that makes up for a (carefully balanced!) mobility deficiency.

The Hellbringer does not suffer from this. You might be thinking Battlemaster (Hellslinger) or something like the Stalker.

[Bloody]

the art from the CCG was fantastic..

[Tarogato]

Deathlike, on 19 April 2015 - 09:12 AM, said:

The Hellbringer does not suffer from this. You might be thinking Battlemaster (Hellslinger) or something like the Stalker.

No, I'm definitely thinking of the Hellbringer. Although, you and I likely stick to different mechs and are accustomed to different characteristics, and I'm rather new to Hellbringers, I've only Elited two so far. So perhaps it's not the best example. Though... I still feel limited in them. =/

[Gyrok]

Yes, the ebon jaguar/cauldron born should be squatty and low.

[Omi_]

Yes from me. I prefer the revised, more squat design provided by OP.

[NocturnalBeast]

It is a Clan heavy, so it will have the same legs as the Timber Wolf and Mad Dog. It is easier for PGI to reuse the leg assets, so they only have to make 50% original assets for the mech, plus it is lore-appropriate since Clan mechs are modular and all that.

[Wrenthebun]

I agree it should be more squat 100%. It was one of the things the Ebon Jag was most well known for. Is it just me or in the concept art did it look much more squat than the model they provided?

[Ultimax]

Tarogato, on 19 April 2015 - 08:43 AM, said:

Thanks for the feedback. I didn't actually mention the word "quirks" specifically, because then people immediately assume this means weapons heat and cooldowns, and other offensive attributes. Chassis like the Hellbringer and Stalker have poor torso twist radius and other characteristics that are part of the defined characteristics and base stats of the chassis.

Those are basically quirks, negative quirks.

Tarogato, on 19 April 2015 - 08:43 AM, said:

The Cauldron Born in the original art had zero torso twist capability. While a bit ridiculous and shortsighted of a design flaw, it would be a nice nod to the source material of the Cauldron Born of MWO at least had a limited torso twist radius. Definitely nothing as drastic as the worst Stalkers, but it definitely shouldn't be as nimble as a Timberwolf. Do you find these trade offs too detrimental? It doesn't seem to hurt many of the strong chassis we have already.

That limited torso twist is one of the things that have held Battlemasters back as a chassis.

I personally think the source art is awful looking, I think what is in that video looks better than anything else put forward from original artwork.

I think the only thing that looks better is the MWO concept art, and moving the fuselage forward is the part I agree with to make it look more aggressive - other than that the concept art is art, and it's a dynamic pose - it's hard to compete with that using a static model with no pose.


So I don't see the need to artificially create balancing issues* to satisfy an appeal to older artwork that just looks bad to me to begin with.


*A situation where where we either accidentally nerf or buff a mech and then follow through with more nerfs or buffs to off-set that.



Lastly, a bunch of posters who agree with you giving zero actual thought to the matter isn't worth nearly as much weight as you are giving it.


The posters who agree with you and then give some kind of real, concrete reasons to support why it will be good and why it won't be a balance issue is the kind of feedback we should consider.

10 posters giving what is effectively a "+1!" and nothing else, is pretty empty feedback.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 19 April 2015 - 09:57 AM.