378 replies to this topic

[Vrekgar]

Tennex, on 23 April 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

yeah the torso twist is pretty bad. though the 3F has very good twist.

I don't think the Stalker needs any buffs. since it is a 80 ton mech that out preformed 95 and 100 ton mechs in the tournament.

the build used isn't even ridiculous or anyting. its just your run of the mill 4 PPC and 5 LLas builds.

as far as weapon slots go it has the same possible builds as most awesomes. it is only 5 tons more than an awesome yet the awesome did the worst in the toney by a large margin. Profile size definitely has play.

The big difference is that the awesome is a big high and wide shouldered *******. It always has been.

I cant recall ever feeling threatened by one. So while it can share most builds with the stalker, the stalker just has better placement of them.

An awesome definately seems like its positioned as a "Fast" assault mech. Meaning it should be using a big XL engine to utilize its superior speed.

Stalkers are easier to play in comparison because they are really slow and with the way the game currently is setup they have very nice placement of weapons that fit the meta.

[Onmyoudo]

All mechs should be looked at, I think. Atlai could maybe do with being a bit bigger (not gonna make it any easier than it already is to hit wherever you want, is it) just to accentuate the sizes of the other mechs. The Stalker could maybe do with staying the same, but man do the mediums need to be way smaller than they are.

[Gideon Grey]

Agreed all should be reevaluated. Cicada feels huge relative to Jenners and Ravens when they shouldn't be much different for five ton delta.

[EvilCow]

Probably it would be a good idea to make mechs total internal volume proportional to the weight. The height would not necessarily be proportional to weight because the various possible arrangements of volumes.

For example the stalker may look small (considering just height) but it is very long and easy to hit on the side.

[Jonathan Paine]

This thread is scary. Much as I think PGI. has made some poor judgements regarding mech sizes, most posters here have no idea of how to calculate volume or deal with density. The richest suggestion so far must be increasing the size of the Atlas, which is tremendously oversized compared to its slightly higher weight.

[Nauht]

Jonathan Paine, on 24 April 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

This thread is scary. Much as I think PGI. has made some poor judgements regarding mech sizes, most posters here have no idea of how to calculate volume or deal with density. The richest suggestion so far must be increasing the size of the Atlas, which is tremendously oversized compared to its slightly higher weight.

Compare the dragon side by side with an atlas... and the oversized centre torso and tell me where the extra 40 tons of mech comes into it.
Or look at a catapult and stalker side by side... which one looks bulkier?

Or are you saying that those mechs are hollow inside?

[DaZur]

Tennex, on 23 April 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

I agree with a single caveat in that I believe based on mass displacement the Mechs are reasonably within acceptable scale.

Thing to remember is BT is a derived from a TT game and as such, targeting, hit chance and damage is largely based on chance and on paper all Mechs are roughly the same size.

That said, MW:O is skill based shooter and the relative size/scale of Mechs is definitely germane to their ability to be targeted / hit and by that dictates their battlefield survivability.

Edited by DaZur, 24 April 2013 - 07:48 AM.

[Crimson Fenris]

jenner needs a bit increase in volume, centurion a decrease to match a Hunchback side (as well as the trebuchet), the dragon and Catapult a slight shrinking in comparison of their closest counterparts (cataphract and jagermechs), and the stalker need maybe a slight increase of its width to match the volume of the awesome.

Agreed that centurion and Dragon are the most in need of a shrinking.

[Clit Beastwood]

seems like a lot of people don't take into account that some mechs, like the catapult, have a lot of empty space between the missiles, etc. Some mechs are really dense with no empty space, other mechs are spindly, and even others have lots of empty space inside.

[Wrenchfarm]

Can we stop dithering about "hollow internal space" and "realistic mass proportions"? All we want and need are mechs with similar tonnage to be roughly the same size. There is no reason the Cent and Treb should tower over the Hunchie and in the Cent's case stand 1.5x it's width.

It is weird that the 80 Awesome is so much broader than the Atlas (at least it's skinny on the sides) and even if you can make an argument that it might not be entirely unreasonable, it's bad for gameplay. An 80 speed based mech should probably be harder to hit than a 100 ton tank.

Let's put aside our lore based explanations and mathmagician skills and just make some changes that positively affect gameplay. Can we do that?

[Tennex]

Wrenchfarm, on 24 April 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Can we stop dithering about "hollow internal space" and "realistic mass proportions"? All we want and need are mechs with similar tonnage to be roughly the same size. There is no reason the Cent and Treb should tower over the Hunchie and in the Cent's case stand 1.5x it's width.

It is weird that the 80 Awesome is so much broader than the Atlas (at least it's skinny on the sides) and even if you can make an argument that it might not be entirely unreasonable, it's bad for gameplay. An 80 speed based mech should probably be harder to hit than a 100 ton tank.

Let's put aside our lore based explanations and mathmagician skills and just make some changes that positively affect gameplay. Can we do that?

agreed we can speculate all we want about hollowness density mass etc etc.

all it is is speculation. and carries no weight.



what does carry weight is game balance. and the fact of the matter is a bigger mech is easier to hit.

Edited by Tennex, 24 April 2013 - 08:26 AM.

[Keifomofutu]

Wrenchfarm, on 24 April 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Can we stop dithering about "hollow internal space" and "realistic mass proportions"? All we want and need are mechs with similar tonnage to be roughly the same size. There is no reason the Cent and Treb should tower over the Hunchie and in the Cent's case stand 1.5x it's width.

It is weird that the 80 Awesome is so much broader than the Atlas (at least it's skinny on the sides) and even if you can make an argument that it might not be entirely unreasonable, it's bad for gameplay. An 80 speed based mech should probably be harder to hit than a 100 ton tank.

Let's put aside our lore based explanations and mathmagician skills and just make some changes that positively affect gameplay. Can we do that?

Yup you could argue cent wastes space under his armpits, but the fact remains he's as wide at the shoulder as an awesome with massive cannons sticking out. This whole upper torso area is an incredibly easy target. And a medium with an easy target zone is a poorly balanced medium.

The only reason cent survive at all is people strip the armor from the massive arms and deliberately let them get blown off.

[s5134195]

I'll provide Dennis de Koning's (Art Director) response to my inquiry on this subject:

"Now, regarding 'Mech scale; there seems to be quite a bit of contention about this on the forums. The original eight 'Mechs were scaled by me; I am fully accountable for them and stand by my decisions. Many people use the silhouettes as their only source of reference when comparing scales and neglect other factors; the most important being the density of every 'Mech is not spread equally over it's structure. The Catapult, for example, may have a large silhouette over it's fuselage, but this is just a large box and its content doesn't weigh that much. Most of it's actual weight is in the fuselage and legs.
Here is a quote I wrote in the design doc regarding 'Mech scale:

Mass should not be confused with weight as mass is a constant and weight is relative.
In other words, an objects weight is dependent on the amount of force exerted on it by gravity, whereas mass remains constant, even in weightless environment: inertia depends on mass.
Given that all Mechs are (by enlarge) made of the same materials, it can be determined that their masses are relative to one another i.e. One cubic measurement of every Mech has equal weight.
A relatively light Mech may be taller than a Mech of equal weight or heavier. The Centurion, for example, is taller than both the (equally heavy) Hunchback and the (heavier) Dragon.

This may or may not convince everyone that my decisions are correct, but a call has to be made, and I made it. The rest of the 'Mechs' scales are determined as we go, are based on every one before it and are discussed thoroughly between Alex (concept), Evan & Kris (modelers) and myself."

Edited by s5134195, 24 April 2013 - 09:47 AM.

[Bors Mistral]

The Cent is pretty lean and I could buy its height per tonnage.
The Trebuchet however definitely requires a bit of shrinking.

Overall though, the size relations between the mechs in the game is pretty darn good.

[Keifomofutu]

s5134195, on 24 April 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

I'll provide Dennis de Koning's (Art Director) response to my inquiry on this subject:

"Now, regarding 'Mech scale; there seems to be quite a bit of contention about this on the forums. The original eight 'Mechs were scaled by me; I am fully accountable for them and stand by my decisions. Many people use the silhouettes as their only source of reference when comparing scales and neglect other factors; the most important being the density of every 'Mech is not spread equally over it's structure. The Catapult, for example, may have a large silhouette over it's fuselage, but this is just a large box and its content doesn't weigh that much. Most of it's actual weight is in the fuselage and legs.
Here is a quote I wrote in the design doc regarding 'Mech scale:

Mass should not be confused with weight as mass is a constant and weight is relative.
In other words, an objects weight is dependent on the amount of force exerted on it by gravity, whereas mass remains constant, even in weightless environment: inertia depends on mass.
Given that all Mechs are (by enlarge) made of the same materials, it can be determined that their masses are relative to one another i.e. One cubic measurement of every Mech has equal weight.
A relatively light Mech may be taller than a Mech of equal weight or heavier. The Centurion, for example, is taller than both the (equally heavy) Hunchback and the (heavier) Dragon.

This may or may not convince everyone that my decisions are correct, but a call has to be made, and I made it. The rest of the 'Mechs' scales are determined as we go, are based on every one before it and are discussed thoroughly between Alex (concept), Evan & Kris (modelers) and myself."

Sounds like a game designer who completely neglected to keep balance in mind. The actual volume is mostly irrelevant to gameplay. Front profile is so much more important. He's not making art after all he's working on what should be a balanced game.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 24 April 2013 - 10:02 AM.

[Tennex]

s5134195, on 24 April 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

I'll provide Dennis de Koning's (Art Director) response to my inquiry on this subject:

"Now, regarding 'Mech scale; there seems to be quite a bit of contention about this on the forums. The original eight 'Mechs were scaled by me; I am fully accountable for them and stand by my decisions. Many people use the silhouettes as their only source of reference when comparing scales and neglect other factors; the most important being the density of every 'Mech is not spread equally over it's structure. The Catapult, for example, may have a large silhouette over it's fuselage, but this is just a large box and its content doesn't weigh that much. Most of it's actual weight is in the fuselage and legs.
Here is a quote I wrote in the design doc regarding 'Mech scale:

Mass should not be confused with weight as mass is a constant and weight is relative.
In other words, an objects weight is dependent on the amount of force exerted on it by gravity, whereas mass remains constant, even in weightless environment: inertia depends on mass.
Given that all Mechs are (by enlarge) made of the same materials, it can be determined that their masses are relative to one another i.e. One cubic measurement of every Mech has equal weight.
A relatively light Mech may be taller than a Mech of equal weight or heavier. The Centurion, for example, is taller than both the (equally heavy) Hunchback and the (heavier) Dragon.

This may or may not convince everyone that my decisions are correct, but a call has to be made, and I made it. The rest of the 'Mechs' scales are determined as we go, are based on every one before it and are discussed thoroughly between Alex (concept), Evan & Kris (modelers) and myself."

mass is the same as weight as far as this topic is concerned. Mass is only used when comparing objects in areas of different gravity (what does that have anything do with what we are talking about?) They should not be referenced when comparing mechs. unless the two mechs being compared are standing on different planets when comparing.
(dennis doesn't exactly sound like a physicist in his argument lol... )

Edited by Tennex, 24 April 2013 - 11:36 AM.

[DaZur]

Tennex, on 24 April 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

mass is the same as weight as far as we are concerned. Mass is only used when comparing objects in areas of different gravity (what does that have anything do with what we are talking about?) They should not be referenced when comparing mechs. unless the two mechs being compared are standing on different planets when comparing.
(dennis doesn't exactly sound like a physicist in his argument lol... )

This is why I always refer back to fluid displacement as a more accurate measurement...

In a nutshell, two different 50 ton Mech regardless of their relative shape, if when immersed in a fixed volume of fluid, should theoretically displace the same amount of of fluid volume assuming their overall surface area is the same.. This means of measurement would explain why a a Cent and a Hunch, while proportionately differ, weigh the same.

Edited by DaZur, 24 April 2013 - 10:48 AM.

[Tennex]

DaZur, on 24 April 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

This is why I always refer back to fluid displacement as a more accurate measurement...

In a nutshell, two different 50 ton Mech regardless of their relative shape, if when immersed in a fixed volume of fluid, should theoretically displace the same amount of of fluid volume assuming their overall surface area is the same.. This means of measurement would explain why a a Cent and a Hunch, while proportionately differ, weigh the same.

yeah assuming the density is the same.

but they could use any hypothetical argument to justify the mech size.. lol really. "oh one mech is made of marshmellows and the other one is made of titanium and thats why it is so light) etc etc of couress that was a hyperbole

density is speculative and hypothetical in MWO. The impact of profile size on balance is not.

Edited by Tennex, 24 April 2013 - 11:17 AM.

[Adridos]

Nauht, on 23 April 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

The dragon is as tall as an atlas and just as wide.

Someone's got really messed up resolution settings it seems...




Atlas is bigger as it should be.

As far as Awesome goes, you guys can simply say it outright. You want it deleted from the game and replaced by a different mech. Awesome was always a walking broadside of a barn and a slow one at that. Make it a small speedster and you might as well remove it from the game/replace it with Hatamoto-Chi.

[Garth Erlam]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 April 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

Unless the Trebuchet is Hollow, it clearly would have to weigh massively more than a Hunchback, which is barely 2/3 the size.

I am looking at them side by side, and the Hunchback is certainly not 2/3rd the size of a Trebuchet. I noticed a similar thing when I compared the Cicada to the Jenner - the Jenner though has a lower cockpit, whereas the Cicada has a VERY high cockpit. They're only 2 metres different in height, I believe.

Anyway though, the Hunch and Treb aren't that dissimilar in size.