Jump to content

Alternative To Mech Model Resizing


1 reply to this topic

Poll: What is your preference for mech standards? (5 member(s) have cast votes)

Mechs should be balanced by:

  1. Model size (volume) to tonnage (4 votes [80.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 80.00%

  2. Model size (volume) to Armor & Structure (1 votes [20.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  3. Current ratios are fine, whatever the Art Dept comes up with (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Adamski

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 1,071 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 26 March 2015 - 01:15 PM

As we all know, many many mechs are far too large (in volume) for the amount of Tonnage they bring (which limits their armor and structure as well as their armament).

By Volume, I mean their entire displacement, which factors in their height, width, and depth.

PGI has been EXTREMELY reluctant to address this through model re-scaling. Their Art Department went so far as to say that they size mechs based on what feels right and not by any measurements.

They specifically lay out that the Catapult is larger because it isn't as "dense". (See Ask the Devs #42 if you can find it, PGI stripped it off of their servers)

Most all of the players have realized by now that in a FPS, Size is an important balancing factor.

PGI seems to have realized this, but have dug in their heels and are instead using Quirks to account for imbalanced model sizes / hitboxes.

My Suggestion:

Use Quirks to give Free Armor AND Structure so that EVERY mech has the Armor and Structure appropriate to their in game size.

These mechs will STILL need weapon quirks to balance their lower weapons payload relative to their size.

AND the mechs will still need weapon quirks to balance them for CW Faction Warfare 12v12

Hypothetical Example:
Shadow Hawk 55 tons max 370 armor 191 structure, size of a 80 ton Victor 494 armor 253 structure
Quirks:
Structure: LL/RL +8, RA/LA +8, LT/RT +8, CT +14
Armor: LL/RL +16, RA/LA +16, LT/RT +16, CT +28

I know it sounds ridiculous, but if the mech has the size of 80 tons, it should have the armor and structure of 80 tons.

Edited by Adamski, 26 March 2015 - 06:30 PM.


#2 oldradagast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 26 March 2015 - 06:39 PM

All mechs of a given tonnage should take up about the same amount of space. They are all made from the same materials and use roughly the same technology. Even this wouldn't achieve true hit-box parity since you can have mechs with horrid hitboxes (Awesome) vs. ones with great hitboxes (Stalker) because of the mech's shape.

Instead, what we currently have is a random number generator that scales mechs to sizes that make no sense. We have 60 and 65 ton mechs about as big as 85 to 90 ton assaults: oversized Catapult, Quickdraw, and Thunderbolt vs. almost any assault mech. We have the tiny Stalker, that comes in barely larger than the oversized Catapult, despite the 20 ton difference. We have the Centurion vs. Hunchback - no way that both are 50 tons. Meanwhile, adding 5 more tons somehow grows mechs tremendously into the Shadowhawk, Griffin, and Wolverine... Next up, you have the incredibly small 50 ton Enforcer, and on the list goes.

It's a mess, and not only does it negatively effect game play by flat-out hosing oversized mechs, it looks shoddy as well and gives the appearance that these mechs are simply slapped together and rushed out the door with no real quality control or thought put into their final size.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users