242 replies to this topic

[Jonny Taco]

Personally I think the overly rounded cockpit area compared to the concept is a bigger issue than the arms. That being said, I'd very much like to see the arms extended slightly and the gauss barrels pushed back into them a bit.

The gauss being rotated 180 degrees is fantastic news though!

[Imperius]

I'm going to put the issues I have in a list.

- Arms too low compared to where they line up on the concept art
- Arms too short compared to concept art
- Gauss rifles stick out too far compared to concept art
- Cockpit nose to bulky compared to concept art
- Leg and bottom torso geometry seems a bit off compared to concept art

Edited by Imperius, 02 May 2017 - 04:21 AM.

[CK16]

PhantomDust, on 01 May 2017 - 09:15 PM, said:

Hey guys!

I am actively looking at this thread and taking in all the feedback. I don't want to promise anything until its actually done/approved.

But what i can say is that I have already flipped the Gauss rifles to fit the concept, as for pushing the Gauss rifles in that still needs to be discussed with the appropriate people.
I'll try my best to keep you guys updated.

Cheers,

Arman

Thank you Arman! We really appreciate it, and I apologize for if we see a bit fanatical about this. Just well to a few, this is our baby since MW4

[Metus regem]

Vellron2005, on 02 May 2017 - 03:38 AM, said:

As far as the other Civil War mechs.. the Annihilator is OMG KILL IT WITH FIRE UGLY!

Yes, I said it.

It's UGLY.

The whole thing looks waaay to slim, the head is sorta awkward and also to slim. Neck should he thicker at the base, legs should be thicker, arms should be rounder (like in the concept art), and the shoulder handle-bars should be removed entirely..

Please PGI, make the Annihilator nicer.. it looks really ugly..

You can't really do much to make look good, it wasn't built to look pleasing, it was built to blend in with buildings and murder things that came down the street it was watching over...

I just don't see the appeal for that mech in MWO, it's going to get mastered then tossed in the same heap that currently contains Kintaros, Highlanders, Dragons, Orions and Orion IIC's....

Imperius, on 01 May 2017 - 02:57 PM, said:

Calling us nuts for wanting the model to match the art is an insult. Saying that it's crying is also an insult. Feedback is not crying. Crying would be if I just insulted the art team and stomped my feet without saying why I'm stomping my feet!

Hence why I am careful with my wording, I've not called you nuts, overzealous sure, but not nuts.

[Imperius]

Metus regem, on 02 May 2017 - 08:09 AM, said:

You can't really do much to make look good, it wasn't built to look pleasing, it was built to blend in with buildings and murder things that came down the street it was watching over...

I just don't see the appeal for that mech in MWO, it's going to get mastered then tossed in the same heap that currently contains Kintaros, Highlanders, Dragons, Orions and Orion IIC's....




Hence why I am careful with my wording, I've not called you nuts, overzealous sure, but not nuts.

Yes I know, and I appreciate that. I honestly really hate to fight.

[Bishop Steiner]

Vellron2005, on 02 May 2017 - 03:38 AM, said:

As far as the MadCat Mk2 goes, yeah, I agree about the ballistic hardpoints being a bit too protruding. Also, the arm boxes seem to be a bit shorter than the concept art..

I have also noticed the slim flimsy-looking legs.. I hope they make them a bit bulkier and the parts under the knee rounder..

As far as the other Civil War mechs.. the Annihilator is OMG KILL IT WITH FIRE UGLY!

Yes, I said it.

It's UGLY.

The whole thing looks waaay to slim, the head is sorta awkward and also to slim. Neck should he thicker at the base, legs should be thicker, arms should be rounder (like in the concept art), and the shoulder handle-bars should be removed entirely..

Please PGI, make the Annihilator nicer.. it looks really ugly..

Cougar is awesome looking, and the Uziel is amazing.. good job on that one..

And just in case you were wondering.. you pronounced the Uziel wrong..

It's the "U-Ziiii-El" not "U-Z-El" (Example of this is the quartermaster in MW4 I think that pronounces it, I tried to find the cinematic on google, but alas, I failed :-( )

Would be best to start your own Annihilator thread, so as not to obfuscate the issue or get lost in the confusion on a MadCat mkII thread. I'd happily support such a thread, even if I don't agree with all your criticisms....I do feel the head has issues, though.

[Widowmaker1981]

Imperius, on 02 May 2017 - 04:18 AM, said:

I'm going to put the issues I have in a list.

- Arms too low compared to where they line up on the concept art
- Arms too short compared to concept art
- Gauss rifles stick out too far compared to concept art
- Cockpit nose to bulky compared to concept art
- Leg and bottom torso geometry seems a bit off compared to concept art

i dont think the arms are too low - too short definitely yes, but height wise it looks right to me, the arms are angled up slightly in the concept where they are horizontal in the model, giving the impression of slightly higher gun barrels.

agreed with everything else, though the lower torso/leg stuff is minor

[Bishop Steiner]

Widowmaker1981, on 02 May 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

i dont think the arms are too low - too short definitely yes, but height wise it looks right to me, the arms are angled up slightly in the concept where they are horizontal in the model, giving the impression of slightly higher gun barrels.

agreed with everything else, though the lower torso/leg stuff is minor

it is lower, but such a minor amount it literally will have no practical impact, maybe 1 shot out of 1000, even comp players can't gauge clearance that precisely to matter. It just looks like it's more out of line because of the general change of proportions to the cockpit/CT to begin with.

[Imperius]

Bishop Steiner, on 02 May 2017 - 10:50 AM, said:

it is lower, but such a minor amount it literally will have no practical impact, maybe 1 shot out of 1000, even comp players can't gauge clearance that precisely to matter. It just looks like it's more out of line because of the general change of proportions to the cockpit/CT to begin with.

Matters to me, and since it's so minor the adjustment should be easy.

Edited by Imperius, 02 May 2017 - 11:03 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Imperius, on 02 May 2017 - 11:02 AM, said:

Matters to me, and since it's so minor the adjustment should be easy.

except while the distance is minor, the fix, is not? The fix requires the rescaling/remodling of the entire fuselage/canopy of the mech.

This is the part where one has to consider if they are being reasonable/unreasonable, and realize when there demands might become construed as unreasonable enough to derail the more moderate requests, also.

[Imperius]

Bishop Steiner, on 02 May 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

except while the distance is minor, the fix, is not? The fix requires the rescaling/remodling of the entire fuselage/canopy of the mech.

This is the part where one has to consider if they are being reasonable/unreasonable, and realize when there demands might become construed as unreasonable enough to derail the more moderate requests, also.

I think it's a simple bump up where the arms attach

[Bishop Steiner]

Imperius, on 02 May 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

I think it's a simple bump up where the arms attach

that simple bump requires redesigning the entire arm attachments, and the results, likely not worth the effort. But I have a feeling I know where this rabbit hole is leading.... already been on this ride at least twice before....... and both times tried to help you not sabotage your own ambitions. *shrugs* Proceed, then........

[Imperius]

Bishop Steiner, on 02 May 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

that simple bump requires redesigning the entire arm attachments, and the results, likely not worth the effort. But I have a feeling I know where this rabbit hole is leading.... already been on this ride at least twice before....... and both times tried to help you not sabotage your own ambitions. *shrugs* Proceed, then........

Who knows neither of us are 3D artists and neither of us have seen the front view and the joints. We both said our peace so let's leave it at that.

[pbiggz]

Imperius, on 02 May 2017 - 11:52 AM, said:

Who knows neither of us are 3D artists and neither of us have seen the front view and the joints. We both said our peace so let's leave it at that.

It depends on how far along in modeling they are. They mentioned that they were in T-pose meaning they hadn't been rigged/animated yet

Also if they havent started UVing and Texturing then its an easy fix

[Navid A1]

If tweeting was gonna get you anywhere, we would not still have had secondary missile box tumors on the timber wolf:

Spoiler

Let alone something as insignificant as a few inches of barrel

Edited by Navid A1, 02 May 2017 - 04:41 PM.

[CK16]

Navid A1, on 02 May 2017 - 04:40 PM, said:

If tweeting was gonna get you anywhere, we would not still have had secondary missile box tumors on the timber wolf:

Spoiler

Let alone something as insignificant as a few inches of barrel

From what I gathered, this is something Mark does want to do, he just has no time. Maybe when he visits it for the retrofiring of ATM pods he will be able to work it out! Also it is quite possible with the current thing NOW because it is just a model atm, not animated or painted ect. NOW is the time to fix it (hopefully hear they can soon)

[Hit the Deck]

This is getting 4000 views and counting. Kind of amazing, lol.

[Imperius]

Hit the Deck, on 02 May 2017 - 05:02 PM, said:

This is getting 4000 views and counting. Kind of amazing, lol.

I have only refreshed about 3890 times

[Jingseng]

Barrel length still strikes me as being an aesthetic issue and not a more practical, will have a gameplay impact one. That being the case, if so, should probably abandon in favor of ones that are (resources, time, extra work, etc.)

If there is a reasonable gameplay impact, please explain?

[Bishop Steiner]

Jingseng, on 02 May 2017 - 08:36 PM, said:

Barrel length still strikes me as being an aesthetic issue and not a more practical, will have a gameplay impact one. That being the case, if so, should probably abandon in favor of ones that are (resources, time, extra work, etc.)

If there is a reasonable gameplay impact, please explain?

gameplay is nt the only consideration in the world.

If we cannot trust PGI to deliver a reasonable facsimile of the concept art they use to puch preorders, how much will people be willing to pump into future preorders?