The Omniframe Revealed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maven

Kaiju Slayer
Max Kahuna
Philanthropist
Jul 26, 2016
262
1,197
93
#81
Grummz clearly said that the frame design is final and all, but I am just going to drop this here for possible future cosmetics:

I like that additional chest piece. But I also do like seeing the pilot inside. Was wondering if we could have a balance between the two.

Stage 1: Pilot hops into mech
Stage 2: back and front plates slide in to cover pilot
Stage 3: chest piece plate texture fades out to a partially transparent shield texture with light blurred lines outlining the edges of the plates, revealing the pilot inside.
Do understand that it would be an expensive effort from art to animation, but I feel it's something that can appease both sides AND something that can be explained out.
 
Last edited:

TankHunter678

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2016
369
311
63
#82
I like that additional chest piece. But I also do like seeing the pilot inside. Was wondering if we could have a balance between the two.

Stage 1: Pilot hops into mech
Stage 2: back and front plates slide in to cover pilot
Stage 3: plate texture fades out to a transparent shield texture with light blurred lines outlining the edges of the plates.
Do understand that it would be an expensive effort from art to animation, but I feel it's something that can appease both sides AND something that can be explained out.
So basically optical camouflage. Which would fit in with stealth designed suits.

So long as I have the ability to turn that off when in 3rd person I would be fine with that.
 
#84
On, no no no...

This isn't what I imagined. That poster with the thumper MEK and slender female character holding weapons in her hand is completely misleading, then. http://7f4kj2uofeo3rpee42sawgc1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/EmberPoster.jpg

I pictured frames like in FF, that'll have separate parts for every body-part that can be swapped out and mixed and matched for different stat boosts and effects. Not this. And the pilot is exposed? How is that protection? A shield? No no. This should be some thumping-mech, used exclusively to either assist thumping or in larger battles. Something only piloted, occasionally.

Don't care how mobile it is. It's already bulky. It's already visually unappealing to have such a large metal frame around my character. And it's still dehumanizing no matter how much I can customize it.

Sorry, but this is going in the wrong direction. A complete hype-killer.

The only positive thing in it is the promise of customization and piloting-skill improvement. But, that's something to be had with the different vehicles one could use for transportation. If we're already in some "fast", mobile mechs, then what's the point of vehicles? What would really give a player reason to leave the frame and take a bike or a jeep to somewhere? Nothing.
 
Last edited:

Grummz

$6k package
Community Manager
Ember Dev
Jul 25, 2016
808
6,719
93
#85
Ya sorry guys, but open cockpit is the way I think it needs to be. Covering it up makes it much more like a robot and most people have less connection with their pilot this way. You'd basically never see people, unless you invented entire social gameplay mechanics that required it, which is a lot of work just to see your character. Putting your char on a UI screen really only makes it work for you and only when you open up your UI. Others can't see you unless they maybe pull up an inspection UI, which again is not most of the time.

People are overthinking the shields thing. It doesn't ruin gameplay, or even immersion to have a hand-wave here. Granted, it might to some players, but we have games with death and respawning, infinite ammo, and enemies that pop into existence and in some games animals that drop weapons. It's really not going to cause a design problem (unless you say that all design must make physical sense, but that's never the case and is a straightjacket that limits the core goal of fun). What it does require is a suspension of disbelief. You already did it with Firefall frames and their lack of coverage... and Firefall has no shields. By all rights a weapon that can chew through Firefall's ceramic and sintergel filled frame should evaporate you on a headshot, but it doesn't.

The design for the Omniframe is already more striking than any "guy in a suit" type thing and stands out as fairly unique. If we close the cockpit it would start to look like every other mech game out there. If we do away with the frame and use a suit, then we're going to have trouble standing out from generic space marine (or Warmachine or Overwatch).

Movies make this sacrifice all the time. The mechs in Matrix, Edge of Tomorrow (Live, Die, Repeat), Aliens (loader), and in many cases the open helmets and cockpits of movie designs are there to let you see the character and identify one from the other and to see their expressions and humanity and character. This design will let us have far more customization options and a unique look that I think sets us apart...while creating a stronger connection to your friends characters and your own.

For those that want a more armored look, the pilot can have suit variations that resemble hard armor for those that prefer it. For those that want to dress casual, this allows it. Its all about expressing your individuality as a person and not just as a machine. In fact, nesting the pilot into the frame gives your a ton of more options for customizing your look, feel and even personality than Firefall ever did.

Maybe I'm wrong. If so, that's the goal of the mini-milestones. If I guessed wrong and people can't get behind this design and feel its a deal breaker for them, the next round won't fund. That's why we break it up into smaller chunks. It minimizes your risk by raising smaller amounts and gives us the ultimate feedback. Meanwhile, though, the response has been overwhelmingly positive with only lingering worry about the openness. "Have a cookie, by the time you're done eating it, I hope you'll be as right as rain"...to butcher a quote from the Matrix. What I mean is, see how it feels to play it, and you won't really be remembering your worries about an open pilot.

For any BMW fans out there, you might remember the Bangle butt. Chris Bangle, lead designer for BMW, changed the trunk of the 7 serious BMW radially, and the outcry was immense, not like the polite discussion we have here. :) I hated it too. But sales of the 7 serious rose, and the butt spread not just to other BMWs but to many other makes as people copied it. I've long since forgotten why I hated it, and even think its normal now. Same with my reaction to the N64 controller with its middle "prong." I sent a not so nice letter to Nintendo about that one, and so did many, many others. You never hear about that now.

This won't be the only departure from Firefall's *specifics*. I'm not aiming to copy Firefall but to adhere to its original principles and design, much of it never implemented. Ember will be its own kind of game....the game Firefall never got the chance to be. So expect the unexpected, but I think its safe to say this (the Omniframe) is one of the biggest differences you'll see.
 
Last edited:

Grummz

$6k package
Community Manager
Ember Dev
Jul 25, 2016
808
6,719
93
#86
If we're already in some "fast", mobile mechs than what's the point of vehicles? What would really give a player reason to leave the frame and take a bike or a jeep to somewhere? Nothing.
I've mentioned it in other places, but travel speed is not the primary differentiating factor or purpose of a vehicle in Ember. Think more Planetside 2, and less bikes and armored personnel transport or jeeps. The purpose of vehicles in Ember is not always about transportation as it is about firepower and options/features/tactical options.
 
#88
I've mentioned it in other places, but travel speed is not the primary differentiating factor or purpose of a vehicle in Ember. Think more Planetside 2, and less bikes and armored personnel transport or jeeps. The purpose of vehicles in Ember is not always about transportation as it is about firepower and options/features/tactical options.
The original post said that this frame is what our character will most commonly be seen in and will be the primary means that players will fight alongside T.H.M.P.R. mining MEK-A and other encounters.

Then, why on the poster art, does the character 1) hold weapons in both hands (as if they were primary and secondary) 2) is in what looks like a frame from FF, with what appear to be boosters on her back? It's completely misleading. I was fully convinced we'd have suit-like frames, as in FF. And all of my posts here, about customization, separate parts, gear, weapons, loot, visuals...etc. were made with something similar in mind. Something like on the damn poster art. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who, therefore, was not expecting to be piloting a mech, at all.

You're saying going with something similar to FF frames wouldn't make the game and the players in it stand out from generic space-marines. Now, I take it, that also means you would feel like you're copying something that's been done to death. Well, I could easily say the whole thing looks (almost) like Gundam, for example. Something that's been already done, a lot. The open-cockpit doesn't really make it all that different or less dehumanizing.
 
#89
If you take a look at the link Grummz provided in the OP, you'll see the bit about the energy shield. From what he has said on this subject so far, the open design is based on "humanizing" the MEK in order to allow the player to better connect and identify with their character during play. I, personally, do not see this element of the visual design for the MEK having that sort of impact. I see it creating many more design problems (for both the RPG and the video game) than it attempts to solve.
My character sitting in what looks like the bulky, eviscerated husk of a (perhaps scaled-down) thumper mech, limbs spread out, is not humanizing, in any way. It's awkward, for one.
 

TankHunter678

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2016
369
311
63
#90
Ya sorry guys, but open cockpit is the way I think it needs to be. Covering it up makes it much more like a robot and most people have less connection with their pilot this way. You'd basically never see people, unless you invented entire social gameplay mechanics that required it, which is a lot of work just to see your character. Putting your char on a UI screen really only makes it work for you and only when you open up your UI. Others can't see you unless they maybe pull up an inspection UI, which again is not most of the time.
Or when we are inside a base, cause otherwise why would people ever leave their mech? Can you imagine 40-60 of these things crowding around an event NPC?

People are overthinking the shields thing. It doesn't ruin gameplay, or even immersion to have a hand-wave here. Granted, it might to some players, but we have games with death and respawning, infinite ammo, and enemies that pop into existence and in some games animals that drop weapons. It's really not going to cause a design problem (unless you say that all design must make physical sense, but that's never the case and is a straightjacket that limits the core goal of fun). What it does require is a suspension of disbelief. You already did it with Firefall frames and their lack of coverage... and Firefall has no shields. By all rights a weapon that can chew through Firefall's ceramic and sintergel filled frame should evaporate you on a headshot, but it doesn't.
Except Firefall frames did have shields over the exposed flesh. You saw them resurge every time you left combat on decent graphics settings.

The design for the Omniframe is already more striking than any "guy in a suit" type thing and stands out as fairly unique. If we close the cockpit it would start to look like every other mech game out there. If we do away with the frame and use a suit, then we're going to have trouble standing out from generic space marine (or Warmachine or Overwatch).
Have you thought of why mechs are considered cool? Why in general for combat we see fully armored designs (even if they have energy shields!) in any well known series with a good following?

Its why Tank designs don't change much from game to game, movie to movie. Its why you do not have tanks which are basically a frame with energy shields while showing off the crew. It just would not be a tank.

Movies make this sacrifice all the time. The mechs in Matrix, Edge of Tomorrow (Live, Die, Repeat), Aliens (loader), and in many cases the open helmets and cockpits of movie designs are there to let you see the character and identify one from the other and to see their expressions and humanity and character. This design will let us have far more customization options and a unique look that I think sets us apart...while creating a stronger connection to your friends characters and your own.
The mechs in the Matrix are dockyard loaders with guns for emergency defense, its also why their ammo magazines are fully exposed. Aliens? What we saw is a power loader used for moving crates repurposed to fight the Alien due to the need of the situation. The exosuits used for actual combat, made for combat, are all completely sealed and armored. And Edge of Tomorrow's exosuits are closer to the Firefall Battleframes, not full on mechs.

The current omniframe design would fit right in with dockyard loaders. Something that is quick to get in and quick to get out of once the crates are loaded on/off the ship.

For those that want a more armored look, the pilot can have suit variations that resemble hard armor for those that prefer it. For those that want to dress casual, this allows it. Its all about expressing your individuality as a person and not just as a machine. In fact, nesting the pilot into the frame gives your a ton of more options for customizing your look, feel and even personality than Firefall ever did.
But when I look at a mech I think something heavily armored. I would love to have a far more armored Omniframe that does not have the pilot exposed.

Maybe I'm wrong. If so, that's the goal of the mini-milestones. If I guessed wrong and people can't get behind this design and feel its a deal breaker for them, the next round won't fund. That's why we break it up into smaller chunks. It minimizes your risk by raising smaller amounts and gives us the ultimate feedback. Meanwhile, though, the response has been overwhelmingly positive with only lingering worry about the openness. "Have a cookie, by the time you're done eating it, I hope you'll be as right as rain"...to butcher a quote from the Matrix. What I mean is, see how it feels to play it, and you won't really be remembering your worries about an open pilot.
I think you will find that you will still receive funding because of the overall vision behind the game, more so then individual art direction problems.

Just, with a bit more proper mech design (you could still armor up the front of the thing with a energy window for the character to look out of) you will easily tap into the mecha fan market a lot better then with the current design.

No one is saying though that you cannot have this design as one of the many frames. Just for us heavy armor mech players we are looking for something more armored and enclosed without a highly exposed pilot. So for now we are looking for an attachment to give us the look we are going for, which should not be too hard to design at this stage as one of the first most immediately accessible cosmetic options.
 

Grummz

$6k package
Community Manager
Ember Dev
Jul 25, 2016
808
6,719
93
#91
Then, why on the poster art, does the character 1) hold weapons in both hands (as if they were primary and secondary) 2) is in what looks like a frame from FF, with what appear to be boosters on her back? It's completely misleading. I was fully convinced we'd have suit-like frames, as in FF. And all of my posts here, about customization, separate parts, gear, weapons, loot, visuals...etc. were made with something similar in mind. Something like on the damn poster art. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who, therefore, was not expecting to be piloting a mech, at all.
The time the poster was made, there was no design, no game, just a petition. It's like trying to hold Star Wars to the first draft of its script and saying it cannot deviate, no matter how early in the process it is.

The game is not in production, ideas can and will change. From your post you also sound like you know what crafting and customization and gear progression will be like. Well, I do not know, because we haven't designed it yet.

I understand this direction is a personal disappointment to you to a very large degree (maybe fatally, in terms of supporting this game). I'm sorry for that but what can I do?
 
#92
So, just curious Mark but have you looked at Project Genome?
https://pgenom.com/about/combat-system/
That Mech is essentially a less dressed up version of the Omniframe.

Just curious if you had seen them.
Lose the damn mechs and it's already perfect. :)

Have them be a siege-weapon. Call-down. Only available in larger scale battles. Defense events or take-over events.
 

Grammaton

Firstclaimer
Jul 29, 2016
19
19
3
Kyle, TX, USA
#93
FTL has one huge problem in "real science" and that is it violates causality. Event B can occur before event A to observer C. Nobody talks about this much, but it makes FTL travel pretty much impossible in real physics. But what fun would that be!

For those who like relativity, frames of reference and enjoy headaches:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/37wxbe/how_does_moving_faster_than_light_violate/
Indeed, though I wasn't intentionally referring to FTL in free space. What I had in mind revolves mainly around the concept of hyperplanar or hyperdimensional travel which would, in effect, lend FTL travel by circumventing normal space-time. The Arclight, and thus the causality for the source of conflict in Firefall, was based on the latter concept (not that I think you don't know that. I say this for onlookers who may not pay attention).

As to the argument over causal chains being limiting factors for FTL travel, that argument over on reddit seemed to be pretty shallow and seemed to deal mostly with the concept of outside observation and the disproven notion that the speed of light emitted by a body in motion is subject to shift based on the speed of said object. Regardless of remote observation of a point of origin for an object moving faster than light at the destination of said object, the causal chain would not be broken in time as time dilation is an effect for the object in motion, not the outside world. As I understand it, the limiting factor for an object moving near to or faster than the speed of light in a vacuum is thought to be an infinite energy requirement relative to mass of said object. Aside from that, we have yet to observe any particle or waveform traveling faster than the speed of light in vacuum, though quantum tunneling seems to sidestep that problem completely. Interesting stuff. :)
 
#94
The time the poster was made, there was no design, no game, just a petition. It's like trying to hold Star Wars to the first draft of its script and saying it cannot deviate, no matter how early in the process it is.

The game is not in production, ideas can and will change. From your post you also sound like you know what crafting and customization and gear progression will be like. Well, I do not know, because we haven't designed it yet.

I understand this direction is a personal disappointment to you to a very large degree (maybe fatally, in terms of supporting this game). I'm sorry for that but what can I do?
Just the bold text, there. :) I can only hope.

From what we've already heard on crafting, customization and gear progression from you guys, I simply (readily) pictured all of that with the omni-frames that I thought were going to look, play and feel similarly to the ones in FF, only partially because of that poster art.
 

Grummz

$6k package
Community Manager
Ember Dev
Jul 25, 2016
808
6,719
93
#95
Just the bold text, there. :) I can only hope.

From what we've already heard on crafting, customization and gear progression from you guys, I simply (readily) pictured all of that with the omni-frames that I thought were going to look, play and feel similarly to the ones in FF, only partially because of that poster art.
heh, fair enough. :)
 

Rocket

Max Kahuna
Max Kahina
Jul 26, 2016
199
324
63
Australia
#96
A classic problem with mech designs is how dehumanizing they are, reducing the connection between player and character. By keeping the character visible, you can identify with it more and form a closer bond to both your avatar and your personalized Omniframe.
@Grummz

The pilot is not going to be visible to the player when piloting the M.E.K. Neither in first person (obviously), nor in third person. The bulk of that frame will hide it, as the camera will always be behind the M.E.K. in gameplay. This will become very evident in 3D.

Add my voice to the list of people who would like to see a M.E.K Lite that augments rather than encapsulates and mostly hides the avatar.
 

NightStroke

Base Commander
Base Commander
Jul 26, 2016
135
231
43
#98
I have been looking at the art for awhile from bed, and the main thing throwing me off about the design are the wings. I feel like they are too large and/or mounted oddly, making the omnimek seem a little too wide. It's odd that they are mounted to the shoulders rather than the upper back(e.g. If you swing your arm does the wing swing with it?). Otherwise I dig it(just give it more lights and stuff)
 

Grammaton

Firstclaimer
Jul 29, 2016
19
19
3
Kyle, TX, USA
#99
I think you will find that you will still receive funding because of the overall vision behind the game, more so then individual art direction problems.
@Grummz Yes, this would exactly be the case for me. I believe in your original vision for the game, as I indicated before. That is separate from the art direction, especially in this regard, though this gives me sufficient reason to use a client-side hack of the resource files straight out of the gate to do away with the much more complicated combat character modeling which you have proposed in favor of something simpler and possibly more immersive, such as the modified graphic @Vladplaya posted.

No one is saying though that you cannot have this design as one of the many frames. Just for us heavy armor mech players we are looking for something more armored and enclosed without a highly exposed pilot. So for now we are looking for an attachment to give us the look we are going for, which should not be too hard to design at this stage as one of the first most immediately accessible cosmetic options.
Indeed.
 
Last edited:
@Grummz

The pilot is not going to be visible to the player when piloting the M.E.K. Neither in first person (obviously), nor in third person. The bulk of that frame will hide it, as the camera will always be behind the M.E.K. in gameplay. This will become very evident in 3D.

Add my voice to the list of people who would like to see a M.E.K Lite that augments rather than encapsulates and mostly hides the avatar.
This.

Just because it is abbreviated as M.E.K. ("mech") doesn't mean it should be a literal mech. The thumpers themselves (being large mechs) will be enough mechs for the game.

EDIT: And while it is true that we cannot see our character's face, unless we used the free-cam/free-look...etc. function...I'd much more prefer my character stand and strike poses, stand tall and proud, on their own legs, rather than be suspended in a bulky robotic frame. Doesn't matter if it can be exited and be summoned. That's hassle an operative doesn't need.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.