181 replies to this topic

[Krivvan]

Cathy, on 19 April 2015 - 11:44 AM, said:

bigger means nothing, its harder to hit tall and thin, than short and squat, look at all the whine about how crap the Grass hopper was going to be, its to tall you ruined it PGI..then it turned out to be one of the best heavies in the game

Aside from it not being one of the best heavies in the game by far (even the LL Quickdraw is probably better), short and squat helps mechs use hills to poke and allows them access to more cover. Ask anyone that uses a Firestarter that used to use a Jenner how much cover you were not able to use anymore.

[Mystere]

Tarogato, on 19 April 2015 - 11:34 AM, said:

I am an Innersphere player and I endorse this idea.

Sorry, had to.

You are but a mere exception, not the rule.

[Xetelian]

I think the original looks way too tall.

[Trashhead]

The Cauldron Born / Ebon Jaguar ALWAYS was a low profiled mech.
Just LOOK...

... how sexy the original design is!

I know it needs to have torso twist ability to be a viable mech within MWO, and PGI has done a good job implementing this.(Totally love the Cicada and Nova; actually more then the original models.)

But this... sky-scraper-syndrome... has to go.


So, YES to OP.

EDIT: @ PGI
Please don't forget that SOME players buy the mechs not only for their performance, but also for the LOOKS.
And at least I will most likely not buy certain mechs because i hate their looks.
Some of them because i simply don't like their basic looks in the first place, but some of them due to what you had done to them.

The Cauldron Born is such a case. And since i already bought it, this will be IT for me spending money in the future if you screw this up.. AGAIN
Enforcer was the first time; and don't get me started on the Short barrel-Syndrome on the Jager's and Ear-disease on the Catapults... you are pi$$ing of fans here, and not even noticing it (which is the saddest part of this whole story).
The bucket is filling up with reasons to quit, and at some point it will be full; sooner for some players, later for others. And it will not be a single subject that will be THE reason to quit, but rather the sole AMOUNT of reasons that will make players quit.

If you want make sure you are.. friends with the majority of your customers... why don't you create polls in game (so you can reach ALL players, not only those that care about the forum)?
Things like this (speaking of the Cauldron-Born-long-leg-issue) could be asked there, and you would get solid data what the community (especially those who are supporting you with actually money) wants.


P.P.S.: regarding "Cauldron-Born OP, please don't make it small because it would be OVER-Over-Powered then" -> apply negative quirks FTW! (or rather: FTB, For The Balance)!
(And i am saying this as a potential owner of that mech.)

Edited by Trashhead, 19 April 2015 - 01:07 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Trashhead, on 19 April 2015 - 12:44 PM, said:

The Cauldron Born / Ebon Jaguar ALWAYS was a low profiled mech.
Just LOOK...

... how sexy the original design is!

I know it needs to have torso twist ability to be a viable mech within MWO, and PGI has done a good job implementing this.(Totally love the Cicada and Nova; actually more then the original models.)

But this... sky-scraper-syndrome... has to go.


So, YES to OP.

It's one thing to draw this, another entirely to animate it. Legs like that would look utterly ridiculous walking - and we've got enough sketchy walking animations as it stands.

[Dolph Hoskins]

Yes

The model on the right just looks wrong with the torso shifted back on the hips and it's long backwards grasshopper legs.

Many other scaling and overall mech quality threads are starting to culminate with the message of this thread quite well. For what these mechs cost to buy they should be finely crafted pixel machines.

[Cpt Jason McCarthy]

Wintersdark, on 19 April 2015 - 12:48 PM, said:

It's one thing to draw this, another entirely to animate it. Legs like that would look utterly ridiculous walking - and we've got enough sketchy walking animations as it stands.

And they made it working with this model in MW3 !! Surprising, isn't it ?

Edited by Shadowpunisher, 19 April 2015 - 12:56 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Shadowpunisher, on 19 April 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

And they made it working with this model in MW3 !! Surprising, isn't it ?

Strum Wealh, on 19 April 2015 - 11:12 AM, said:

Yes, and the animation is awful. It doesn't look mean and predatory, it looks ungainly and awkward. And that's on MW3's basically flat maps. Our animations struggle with uneven terrain to start with, since the removal of inverse kinetics, but these would be even worse.

Edited by Wintersdark, 19 April 2015 - 12:59 PM.

[Petard]

Yes. The current legs look out of proportion to the torso. Too long.

[Otto Cannon]

Someone link the thread to twitter so it might be seen.

[Knight Magus]

Needs to be more squat - first image looks good.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

I expect it to be taller because of the addition of hips, but I would like to see it have more bend to its legs so it sits lower.

[NocturnalBeast]

Some of the Clan mechs in MWO are taller than they are in TT or in older MW games because they have torsos (Nova, Cauldron Born...). Are you Clan players willing to give up the ability to torso twist in order to have a lower profile?

[Lulz Kev]

Agree'd fix it before it's finished!

Maybe we can start turning the tide on subpar mech models with this one!

We already have way to many poor adaptations of mechs in game to keep adding more.

[Corbenik]

I like short and stout EJ but we will get a Grasshopper :X Oh lawd.

[Trashhead]

Wintersdark, on 19 April 2015 - 12:48 PM, said:

It's one thing to draw this, another entirely to animate it. Legs like that would look utterly ridiculous walking - and we've got enough sketchy walking animations as it stands.

Agree.
However, PGi CAN make "legs like this".
The Nova and the Stormcrow use almost the same set of legs (only minor differences, if at all),
but the Nova's torso is still at a lower point then the S'crows:



And i bet the Nova could be lowered even more without looking (more) stupid, so i assume there is room for improvement.

EDIT:
besides, the original Legs (those that are mounted directly to the torso) for the Nova look even more ridiculous, come to think of it.
Which is part of why the walking animation in the video in this thread (Cauldron Born vs. Puma-Fight, see above somewhere), looks so odd... .

My 2 cents.

Edited by Trashhead, 19 April 2015 - 02:24 PM.

[Krivvan]

I can't be the only one that likes the longer legs on an aesthetic level? The original squat cauldron born is one of the silliest and ugliest mechs I've ever seen.

Edited by Krivvan, 19 April 2015 - 03:33 PM.

[Tennex]

Trashhead, on 19 April 2015 - 02:20 PM, said:

Agree.
However, PGi CAN make "legs like this".
The Nova and the Stormcrow use almost the same set of legs (only minor differences, if at all),
but the Nova's torso is still at a lower point then the S'crows:



And i bet the Nova could be lowered even more without looking (more) stupid, so i assume there is room for improvement.

EDIT:
besides, the original Legs (those that are mounted directly to the torso) for the Nova look even more ridiculous, come to think of it.
Which is part of why the walking animation in the video in this thread (Cauldron Born vs. Puma-Fight, see above somewhere), looks so odd... .

My 2 cents.

They CAN do that, but they don't do it very often.

They should have done it for the mad dog but they didnt.

its just easier for them to recycle the exact same animations

Edited by Tennex, 19 April 2015 - 03:37 PM.

[Ultimax]

Tarogato, on 19 April 2015 - 11:17 AM, said:

You may be right, the BLR doesn't quite have the crits...

But if it shields so well and it's so good, why is it hindered just by torso twist angle?

Actually it's hindered by it's torso twist to use it's arms effectively.

I should have been clearer when I posted that.

Tarogato, on 19 April 2015 - 11:17 AM, said:

Pulling up the detailed info in game, looking at Yaw Angle

STK-3F: 80+0
STK-5M: 66+0
STK-M: 65+0
STK-3H: 60+0
STK-4N: 60+0
STK-5S: 60+0

Yaw Speed is 60°/s for all except 5M at 72°/s.

BLR-1D: 80+30
BLR-1S: 80+30
BLR-3S: 80+30
BLR-1GHE: 75+30
BLR-1G: 60+30
BLR-3M: 60+30

Yaw Speed is 80°/s for all.

I think you are mixing things up.

You said yaw angle for the STK and yaw speed for the BLR.


Did you mean to do angle vs. angle here?

Tarogato, on 19 April 2015 - 11:17 AM, said:

We need more people like you. =]

And you as well.

[Navid A1]

Strum Wealh, on 19 April 2015 - 11:12 AM, said:

We can see the MW3 animation for both the Cauldron-Born (which much more closely follows the artwork/miniature design) and the Puma (which follows the same design philosophy):


The leg movement is ungainly & awkward (notice how far both 'Mechs have to thrust their legs forward relative to leg length, and how far upward the knee has to go in the rear in order to accommodate the stride (including, notably, how it must clip the Puma's thigh through its body in order to do so)), and makes the 'Mech appear cumbersome and poorly-balanced (and, thus, poorly-designed).

The model presented by PGI, by contrast, is appealing because it looks like a machine that could actually walk & run and be well-balanced while doing both, which in turn is because it actually follows realistic design principles with regard to how a mechanical bipedal leg assembly would be set-up and aligned versus the (presumed) location of the torso's center-of-mass - it would have a much more normal gait and more graceful (insofar as a 65-metric-ton bipedal war machine can be "graceful") & natural-looking movements.

Re-quoting myself from the other thread.
Correct me if i'm wrong on anything...

Spoiler

Navid A1, on 19 April 2015 - 03:42 PM, said:

Strum Wealh, on 19 April 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

I am being serious, and it does matter.

Here is the MW3 animation for both the Cauldron-Born (which much more closely follows the artwork/miniature design) and the Puma (which follows the same design philosophy):

Spoiler

The MW3 Cauldron-Born leg movement is ungainly & awkward (notice how far it must thrust its legs forward relative to leg length, and how far upward the knee has to go in the rear in order to accommodate the stride (including, notably, how the Puma's thigh must through its body in order to do so at the end of the video)), and makes the 'Mech appear cumbersome and poorly-balanced, especially when compared to a more realistic RJ-biped gait (like that demonstrated by the Toyota I-Foot).

Spoiler

Spoiler

Particularly noticeable when the 'Mech would be running at top speed, the more-crouched stance will look less like some sort of "sleek predator" and more like either a QRIO-style "gotta-go-potty" trot or a "doesn't fall backward 'because magic'" gallop.

The model presented by PGI, by contrast, is appealing specifically because it looks like a machine that could actually walk & run and be well-balanced while doing both, which in turn is because it actually follows realistic design principles with regard to how a mechanical bipedal leg assembly would be set-up and aligned versus the (presumed) location of the torso's center-of-mass - which is something that has been present in the other 'Mechs that PGI has modeled & fits with their overall "make the 'Mechs look realistic & believable" aesthetic.
In this case, the 'Mechs obey the Rule of Cool BECAUSE they are being more realistic in their design and implementation rather than being cartoony caricatures.

And when a significant part of the game's overall aesthetic relies on a certain degree of realism, your falling back to the (blatantly obvious ) "But MWO is a video game!" statement as an argument to dismiss the overall aesthetic is quite silly & doesn't do anything to actually support your argument.

And, as an aside, using WildCat - which is quadrupedal (rather than bipedal) AND doesn't bend its knees (to any significant degree) when moving (the knees lock at ~90° & (nearly) all movement comes from the hip joint) does not provide any meaningful support to your argument, as it is about as different as one can get from a useful example of how a mechanical RJ biped should look & move.

Spoiler

Seems like you are over-simplifying your model.

• - In real lif, using a more straight up stance puts less pressure on the joint servos in the idle stance (assuming we are talking about spherical motors, linear PM motors and/or conventional round rotor servos)... you are right in this regard. You will need less torque in an idle stance...so less electric power consumption.
  
• 
  
• - Hydraulic joints behave differently.
  
• 
  
• - And... There is always a trade-off... always. Assuming electromechanical joints... you will achieve your goal of maintaining a stable stance with low strain and power consumption (the easiest way by the way). However, you will have less stability region... your dynamic model will have more sensitivity to noise in other words. To say it simple, you will need stiffer control to maintain that low power stability and your mech will be more likely to fall under disturbances. Actually, in an environment with more mechanical noise (like a battlefield) you are putting MORE strain on the joints if you choose higher stance meaning that a shell impact will knock you down quite easily.
  
• 
  
• - A lower stance will give you wider stability region at the cost of higher zero speed torque (more power consumption). distance from the center of mass to the ground is smaller and therefor, mechanical noise (bullet impact) can create less destabilizing torque.
  
• 
  
• - Lower stance results in quicker allowable acceleration, deceleration
  
• 
  
• - And finally... Mechs use imaginary myomers... a fictional synthetic muscle. with unknown characteristics. But, if you are talking real world... using higher stance for a BATTLEmech means constant falling over on every hard impact.
  
• 
  
• It should be noted though that lowering the stance too much can also lead to higher instability if the legs remain at the same lenght.