57 replies to this topic

[Kanil]

Viktor Drake, on 04 August 2017 - 07:47 AM, said:

I disagree. I was recently trying to get a good looking camo job on both my Battlemasters and Banshee and no matter the texture, they look absolutely atrocious. They appeared faded and none of the colors stand out in the slightest. The Quickdraw is another one that suffers from this as well. If I am going to pay for colors and camos, then I want them to pop out and show up nicely on my mech, not be some dull, drab monotone looking crap.

Yeah. I find a lot of the pre-Clan IS 'mechs to be really ugly. Somewhere along the line paint stopped being lostech and newer IS 'mechs are good looking enough to be worth driving... but that free Battlemaster they gave out this summer? It's hideous.

[Bud Crue]

Viktor Drake, on 04 August 2017 - 07:47 AM, said:

Counter point to Yeonne's comment of general and tech comparative aesthetics

I agree with you regarding the initial texturing being atrocious, but I am more in Yeonne's camp for the comparison of IS v Clan look. IS was, and imho should be bulkier and more utilitarian in form and function. The Quickdraw you mention is a perfect example of this blockier aesthetic. The MWO version of the Thunderbolt is practically the epitome (the giant missile can is great...the tiny arm laser is the only thing lacking). So too the Cataphract, hell even the Roughneck is a fairly recent example of this. But the smoother more aerodynamic lines of more recent mechs and those incoming should be the exclusive purvue of the more "advanced" clan designs in my view (ebon jag looks badass...it also looks like it might take off into the air it is so stream lined. It screams I am more advanced than you, and it should).

[DaMuchi]

PGI needs to pump more money into the game if it wants this game to continue to survive. More money into marketing and quality of the game, either that or just give up. No dying project ever rekindled by cutting costs.

[Thorqemada]

I like the more blocky hard edged look of the IS Mechs - Military Ground Vehicles pretty much all look very blocky and not soft rounded and its a look of strength.

The other look is more this Comic Style Japanese Mecha Thing that has an aesthetics of ist own but i like the MWO look usually far better.

The Quality of the camos and colours often makes me cry though bcs in the end i have 3 Options that work for me:
Apple Jack (the Trebuchet fits best to it)
Crusader (the Awesome looks most fabulous in it)
FRR (probably most often delivering the overal best Quality - the Thunderbolt looks gorgeous)

The Urbie will be the last RTM-Mech-Buy i did for the forseeable future - i neither do like the Mechs of this timeline nor do i like their look at all.

Edited by Thorqemada, 04 August 2017 - 08:46 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Viktor Drake, on 04 August 2017 - 07:47 AM, said:

I disagree. I was recently trying to get a good looking camo job on both my Battlemasters and Banshee and no matter the texture, they look absolutely atrocious. They appeared faded and none of the colors stand out in the slightest. The Quickdraw is another one that suffers from this as well. If I am going to pay for colors and camos, then I want them to pop out and show up nicely on my mech, not be some dull, drab monotone looking crap.

Also I feel the reason that IS mechs started off with this blockly, harder edged look was because of amateurish modeling efforts that didn't want to take the proper amount of time to model out curves. I am sorry but have you ever looked at a picture of the original Battlemaster? It is sleek and well rounded, not the squared off, blocky shouldered monstrosity we have in game.

Here is how the Battlemaster should look:

http://cfw.sarna.net...=20141107021930

So while I do think the Uziel's torso shape and stance need some modification and that the Mad Cat Mk II's run animation is totally borked and its shape needs to be lower, longer and sleeker, the other two mechs look pretty good and the new brighter textures and more rounded and sleek shapes are definately a move in the right direction. In fact I would love to see mechs like the Battlemaster resigned now that the 3-D modeling has advanced to where they can actually shape it properly.

The TRO art for the Battlemaster, as well as the Catalyst update, look stupid to me and I want nothing to do with them. I prefer the utilitarian look of the one we have. And I don't camo them; because the inherent aesthetic is more that of a war machine, I run them stock pattern with flat Smoke Jaguar Black with only the single line in Slot 3 being colored according to the weapons I have (yellow for splat, orange for PPC, black for lasers). It looks great. And amateurish modeling efforts? Have you seen the Mk. II? Look at how utterly simple the geo is behind the textures. The gaps in the arm shrouds. And the proportions are way off. It is a completely hideous model and it is unfortunate that they are so effective because seeing so many in-game is a real eyesore.

I don't find your amateur angle to hold water, either. Look at the Catapult; it is one of the masterpieces of this game. Yes, it was remodeled, but they kept the chunky, blocky aesthetic all the way and it is a distinct one from newer releases while also displaying that they were more than capable of compound curves way back. The Atlas is quite the coup, too; the Annihilator only wishes it looked that good. And do not get me started on the sh*t show that is AC barrels. No, they made the BLR look the way it does by intent and not need. Back then, they had a unified idea of what they wanted IS 'Mechs to look like (e.g. IS cockpits are angled and framed, which they remain consistent with even today), and have slowly diluted that over time as the game has aged. I would back you up on the case that the add-on textures need updating, but this isn't really about those. It is about the silhouette and default appearance.

This Thanatos? What the hell are these smooth, rounded, unarmored joints? These vast expanses of flat surface? Is this an IS 'Mech, or a square CDS knock-off of a Nova Cat intended for export? Because it looks like the latter. The Uziel with overly scrawny legs featuring Clan scissor joints and its ungainly hunched look? It's like a Storm Crow that ate one of those Wonka three-course candies. The Mauler? If it had a bear head and rounded shoulder pauldrons, it would already be a Kodiak. Even has that center chest trapezoid.

More Blackjacks and less Storm Crow wannabes, please.

[KodiakGW]

Khobai, on 04 August 2017 - 06:34 AM, said:

Because PGI is pushing the wrong thing for microtransactions

people dont want mechpacks anymore, most people have already reached saturation on how many mechs they want or need to own. And PGI has already overused powercreep to sell mechs, so they cant really do it anymore.

PGI shouldve pushed supply caches as the primary microtransaction item of the game.

Including those CBill boost cockpit items in the supply caches would make me want take the chance for sure. I just sold 3 of the four I got over the past month for CBills. The fourth? Had 50MC as teal chance, got it with a free key.

Better yet, make those cockpit items available for MC purchase instead of locking them behind a $280 paywall of undesirable mechs.

[Felicitatem Parco]

This thread reminds me of the "smartphone war" that's being fought exclusively over the shape, olor, and thickness of bezels.

Basically, miniscule aeatetics that have little-to-no bearing on functional use.

In before the "missing features at launch" crowd have to be reminded that we get regular patches and most adults have an attention span longer than 24 hours..

Edited by Prosperity Park, 04 August 2017 - 09:28 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Viktor Drake, on 04 August 2017 - 07:47 AM, said:

I disagree. I was recently trying to get a good looking camo job on both my Battlemasters and Banshee and no matter the texture, they look absolutely atrocious. They appeared faded and none of the colors stand out in the slightest. The Quickdraw is another one that suffers from this as well. If I am going to pay for colors and camos, then I want them to pop out and show up nicely on my mech, not be some dull, drab monotone looking crap.

Also I feel the reason that IS mechs started off with this blockly, harder edged look was because of amateurish modeling efforts that didn't want to take the proper amount of time to model out curves. I am sorry but have you ever looked at a picture of the original Battlemaster? It is sleek and well rounded, not the squared off, blocky shouldered monstrosity we have in game.

Here is how the Battlemaster should look:

http://cfw.sarna.net...=20141107021930

So while I do think the Uziel's torso shape and stance need some modification and that the Mad Cat Mk II's run animation is totally borked and its shape needs to be lower, longer and sleeker, the other two mechs look pretty good and the new brighter textures and more rounded and sleek shapes are definately a move in the right direction. In fact I would love to see mechs like the Battlemaster resigned now that the 3-D modeling has advanced to where they can actually shape it properly.

You... Do realize that's not the original Battlemaster... Right?

That's the "Project Phoenix" Battlemaster, aka RESEEN.

Look closely.

Original/Unseen Battlemaster.


"Project Phoenix" Reseen Battlemaster


And for comparison, here's the newly redesigned CGL "Classics" Battlemaster.


So what you really should be complaining about as far as the Battlemaster goes is the crappy, angular cockpit PGI gave us.

Edited by Alan Davion, 04 August 2017 - 10:20 AM.

[Mystere]

Jun Watarase, on 04 August 2017 - 06:39 AM, said:

PGI does this all the time, less money spent making each mech, the higher profit they get. They know people will buy it anyway. Its just cost cutting.

Its like when you move into a place that looks amazing but you find out they cut costs on the insulation because you cant test the insulation before hand, and by the time you move in its too late because you already paid burned to death.

FTFY.

[Christophe Ivanov]

As someone who has made skins or UV map for that matter, templates and even 3D modeling, I can say the models are good, if not well done. As for the skins...well they are good, but could have been made a lot better. I assume they are as is due to the skin map size?
I just WISH PGI would let us make our own skins using a standard template for each mech. If I were supplied a UV map, you can bet I'll do some nice ones once the process from my template to in game is known.

In real life, I have been a Technical Illustrator, a Designer for over 35 years. I started wayyy back in the Pin and Ink era and was part of the computer revolution in my field as well. I have done work for computer games such as FreeSpace, Freespace 2 and Il2 Sturmovik flight sim. Once a template has been made, I know plenty would jump on board and make some nice ones.

So Cmon PGI! Lets open this up folks!

[ocular tb]

Alan Davion, on 04 August 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

So what you really should be complaining about as far as the Battlemaster goes is the crappy, angular cockpit PGI gave us.

The Battlemaster we have just does nothing for me as far as looks. It looks way better with the bubble cockpit and I think would be one of the best looking mechs in the game if we could get that. As it is now though it's just too flat, boring, and generic looking in my opinion.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 04 August 2017 - 06:34 AM, said:

Because PGI is pushing the wrong thing for microtransactions

people dont want mechpacks anymore, most people have already reached saturation on how many mechs they want or need to own. And PGI has already overused powercreep to sell mechs, so they cant really do it anymore.

PGI shouldve pushed supply caches as the primary microtransaction item of the game.

PGI should be giving out supply caches like candy, the supply caches should have exclusive rewards in them instead of stuff you can just buy with cbills, and they should have a pity point system like hearthstone so youre guaranteed to get something good after opening so many.

Maybe I am schizophrenic and there are really just multiple copies of me posting on this board.

The way supply caches work seem to be the complete opposite of how a financially successful lockbox scheme works.
Step 1) Swamp people with boxes
Step 2) Make the pay for the keys to open them
Step 3) Even the pity prices should be something neat that is hard to get otherwise, and the <0.5 to 1 % chance item to get from the box should be something exclusively and highly valuable.
Optional Step 4) Allow players to trade this stuff for in-game credits, so that even the "cheapskates" can get the exclusive items if they just grind like crazy, ensuring your paying customers always have people to drop against and get to beat the "cheap-skates" with the almost (but not entirely, since you can buy it for in-game money from a paying player) P2W exclusives.
Step 5) Profit.

No question marks involved in this profit scheme!
This is basically half of what keeps all the Cryptic games afloat! (For STO, the other half is the ships you can buy directly for Zen and don't need those boxes and prayers to RNGesus for)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 04 August 2017 - 10:57 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Alan Davion, on 04 August 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

So what you really should be complaining about as far as the Battlemaster goes is the crappy, angular cockpit PGI gave us.

Noep. Bubble cockpit is stupid AF. Looks bad, feels bad, is bad.

[DaZur]

Meh...

IMHO the modeling is reasonably accomplished. Yes, they have and still do **** some basic translations from concept to production. Some I can accept as necessary to mitigate model clipping or to accomidate the Lego-weapon mechanics...

What's chapping my arse is the animations and the camo quality/selections.

As an aside I would take the bubble battlemaster in a heartbeat!

[Coolant]

while I respect people's opinion of how the mechs look, and I appreciate good graphics in any video game, I could care less how they look. I didn't come from tabletop and never looked at the art of the originals. I came from MW4:Mercs and that game had much worse graphics than MWO coming out in around 2002. The mechs could look levels below what they do and they would look better than MW4. And, to the best of my knowledge, I've never bought a mech because of what it looked like.

[Jackal Noble]

Coolant, on 04 August 2017 - 05:36 PM, said:

while I respect people's opinion of how the mechs look, and I appreciate good graphics in any video game, I could care less how they look. I didn't come from tabletop and never looked at the art of the originals. I came from MW4:Mercs and that game had much worse graphics than MWO coming out in around 2002. The mechs could look levels below what they do and they would look better than MW4. And, to the best of my knowledge, I've never bought a mech because of what it looked like.

Ummm ok that's fine and well and that's your opinion but we are at also critical point in this game's timeline where quality matters more than ever (aka MW5 mega mechpack single player edition), in regards to the lifespan/age of the game - i.e. quality of mechanics/animations should improve over time, not degrade. Improvements to A.I. (tip of the iceberg), as well as cleaning up scrap code etc over 5-6 years (GOOD LORD THAT'S A VERY LONG TIME) Also, quality also apparently matters to people other than yourself when paying real money for what amounts to an art form in digital format rendered in 3D. Here, I sh*t on a board and then whiped it all over it, it's art - Will you buy it, because you bought my other sh*ts on a board?

Also, stop killing me in game, it hurts.

Edited by JackalBeast, 04 August 2017 - 05:50 PM.

[Chados]

I just like the Uziel . It's fun. And quirky.

[5th Fedcom Rat]

This thread is kind of funny and proves beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Half of the people love the newer sleeker I.S. designs, half the people hate them. Half the people wanted the Battlemaster to have a bubble cockpit, half hate the idea.

Personally I think PGI has done some amazing mechs in the last year, most of them Clam (Supernova, Linebacker, Huntsman, Marauder IIC). And even the weaker ones this year are still a fair bit better than the absolute amateur junk they sometimes turned out in year's past (like the Enforcer).

PGI has clearly always had scheduling/time management problems when it comes to deadlines, so I think the 4-mechs in one month is responsible for a lot of the quality issues this patch. Hopefully with the return to single mech packs, things will be back up to the usual pretty high standard again soon (and hopefully, they'll work on touching up what they've already released).

At least they figured out how to do proper scissor legs this year (and yes, they can theoretically animate them nicely as well, as proven by the cockpit items that walk better than the actual mechs).

Edited by 5th Fedcom Rat, 04 August 2017 - 10:59 PM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Jun Watarase, on 04 August 2017 - 06:39 AM, said:

That picture. So sad. And all I wanted was this.

[Mechwarrior1441491]

Khobai, on 04 August 2017 - 06:40 AM, said:

cept people arnt buying them

mechpacks arnt selling as well as they used to

That's because a very large amount of people don't play anymore. People from the larger units who were always buying packs. How many times has PGI "asked" the community how to fix the game and then done nothing? Every time.

It might as well be in maintenance mode.