Posted 20 April 2015 - 01:45 PM

Dennis de Koning, on 20 April 2015 - 11:57 AM, said:

Wow, lots of feedback here.

Some of you are happy and don’t desire any changes; others want changes based on game-play, some based on aesthetics and a few are a little ambiguous.

First let me start with the issue of posting WIP. The pose of the Cauldron Born in question here is a pre-rigged T-pose. The rigged (resting) pose is far squatter and somewhat resembles the King Crab in its animation. So, in way, this thread is based on misinformation.

This does not invalidate it though.

Regarding geo modification, there are many things to consider here. We have to take hit boxes into consideration as well as animation. Hitbox adjustment is something that’s always a subject of contention and we’ve made many adjustments on almost all platforms (and will continue to do so). We try to mitigate these issues at the concept stage by finding a compromise between aesthetics and game-play, and continue tweaking well into modelling. When it comes to animating a ‘Mech, a sense of weight, balance, inertia; realism in general, is a priority. A wide legged stance for example would animate poorly, looking like a waddle, and if a constant centering of mass was applied (on cross-over), it would cause a drastic side-to-side motion that would look odd and unstable. This is one of the reasons every ‘Mech has a waist; it’s not just to accommodate torso-twist. Many of the original designs are fused at the waist which gives them a very squat appearance and would animate very poorly [if not impossibly]. The lower [or squatter] the ‘Mechs stance, the more chance of (leg) geo collision at cross-over as well, particularly with chicken-walker ‘Mechs.

One thing we are not (here in the Art Department) is polar. We do not sit absolutely left or absolutely right on anything. There is no ‘this-or-that’ attitude. We are in constantly looking for the sweet spot: the perfect grey area where aesthetics and game-play are balanced. No matter what though, we can’t please everyone, especially those who ARE polar. This is not meant as an insult to anyone’s opinion in any way. I get it, some want a ‘Mech that performs ‘perfectly’, others want a ‘Mech that looks beautiful. Some would gladly sacrifice appearance, immersion and reality for game-play; and others thirst for aesthetics, immersion and suspension of belief. We want it all; but know that’s impossible. Sacrifices, trade-offs, compromises must be made, and there’s so much complexity in the art and design of MWO that perfection can only be pursued, as achieving it is purely subjective.

It seems most of you are pretty intelligent and are understanding of these points as the well-roundedness of this conversation illustrates. We do listen, read and consider everything we can. Many changes and modifications have been made as a direct result of your feedback and many are in the works. So please, keep the feedback coming; be nice though, we artists are sensitive.

Although passion is a great reason for being rude, it’s a horrible excuse.



Thanks for posting!! I'm glad the art department cares about the player feedback! And Dennis always very kind and patient towards the players.But i think that the ortho/modeling stage is too late to make any geometry changes for the sake of balance. IMO those should be made during the concept phase. Or left to the quirk guys.Here are my reasons:1. The concept art always looks good because alex has proportions in mind when making aesthetically beautiful mech. I don't know if you believe in this but: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Golden_ratio http://en.wikipedia....ibonacci_number (this is just a mathematical number, but i do believe that subconsciously something like this lets society gravitate towards what we collectively deem as beautiful). Alex, or any artist whether they know it or not, produces art with a similar subconscious drive. This is the same reason some people are against the tiny Catapult PPCs and Jaegermech guns, because it ruins the proportions created by the artist.2. Concept art is publicized on the buy mech page, and advertized as such. Player expectations(as well as purchases) are set by what they see from that stage, and it shouldn't be suprising when an aesthetically pleasing mech on concept becomes one that is not that some players may be dissapointed.3. By making needed changes at the concept phase, you can have the best of both worlds between balance and aesthetics. The concept artist can produce a mech that is both aesthetically pleasing and balanced. Plus there won't be a perceived bait and switch if the concept you show the players are already balance proof'd and no changes need occur between the concept and 3d model. (though with quirk system in place, i would argue just make mechs for aesthetics and less for balance)

Edited by Tennex, 20 April 2015 - 03:15 PM.