52 replies to this topic

[Tycon]

Mech height has has seamed to be a big topic on the poorly scaled mechs threads as of recent and either disregarded as incredibly important or irrelevant, this is obviously when compared with the girth and width of a mech.. On the topic of it's importance, using terrain as cover, poking your head out and taking weapon convergence to your advantage (low mounted weapons shooting up) seams to be the main pros while the irrelevance tends to do with aiming in this game where nearly all mechs are bound to the ground 0 y axis, the X axis tends to be the biggest factor in terms of aiming at specific mech spots with Z being the alternate consideration for optimal range and projectile gravity/spread (if you aren't using an energy weapon). Mech width when face to face battling seams a more important factor while mech girth is important for torso twisting.

Looking at both of these arguments I tend to lean more towards height matters but under certain conditions. As a locust pilot primarily and sometimes a spider pilot, I absolutely love having a short mech leading to many instances of just a smaller hit box in general being a pain for enemies to deal with. With any mobility height is a huge factor as not only for hill humping but abusing rough terrain, cliffs/drops or asymmetric topography while moving can throw aim off and make you a much more survivable mech. However I must acknowledge that the Locust is a very narrow mech, among the most narrow in the game but suffers from a large girth for a light (cicada problem) making side torso damage rough. The spider on the other hand is relative wide for a very light mech (besides the firestarter or clan mechs, those slanted low hanging arms are annoying when commandos and locust are thinning than you are, especially the legs of the locust.) However the spiders very slender girth make strafing runs or perpendicular fire hardly a problem. it's also worth noting that mech height is more important for jump jet mechs as they are moving in the Y axis, relying on enemies to miss by shooting under your mech or far above the mech aiming up. Vindicators even though they are thin get legged or shot out of the air easily due to their immense height vs spiders or even kitfoxes.

Really a combination of small girth, height and width make a better mech, any grasshopper pilot can tell you how utterly annoying it is to drive when you are being shot in the head across the map. Driving an atlas personally drives me insane for being poked. I find the proportion of mech height to height of the weapons located on the mech itself to be more important than actual height. A short mech like the locust or jenner with high weapon mounts can shoot what it sees and fire upon enemies with low exposure, a tall mech with low mounts is awful. A tall mech with high mounts uses cover differently but effectively feels about the same to me as you will be shooting what you see and have nearly the same amount of exposure behind cover as the other mechs but with a ranged disadvantage. A short mech with low mounts is a mix of each.

While I effectively judge mechs on height, my basic hypothesis is that height is most important for long range engagements (large Z values) and avoiding fire from odd angles, mech width is important when "man moding" face to face exchanges between mechs where you are exposed looking at the mech in the open. If you are using side cover to poke out of vertical cover, the only factor is how far out the weapons are from your mechs exposed areas. Mech girth is important for torso twisting, perpendicular fire and volume of mech clustering ( you can stand more mechs in a smaller area back to back such as in CW if they are thin girth wise.)

Any feed back or thoughts on height or the other 2 dimensions are also fine.

Edited by Tycon, 05 July 2015 - 04:38 AM.

[Aiden Skye]

The bigger you are the more likely you are to get shot at. A light stands next to an assault. 9/10 people are going to shoot the assault. This is indeed an advantage. I've had some epic games in my adder and mist Lynx just because I was ignored for the whole game.

Less size = smaller hit boxes and less chance of getting one component accurately focused. Just look how easy the nova looses components. It may not be tall but it's super wide. I also find myself going better in the Ebon jaguar for example vs the hellbringer despite the Ecm on the Hellbringer. Mostly because its torso is compact vs the boxy hellbringer.

Don't think height is as good for long range as much as high mounted hardpoints. Short mech with high hardpoints is what I like.

[Clint Steel]

A Jager taller than all other Mechs would still be good, an Atlas the size of a Jager wouldn't be much (if any) better due to its low hanging hardpoints.

[TheCharlatan]

As i wrote on an other topic: mech height is a double edged sword (as long as you have high mounted HPs).
You can shoot at more targets, but more stuff can shoot at you.
A good pilot will find way to maximize the former and minimize the latter.

Without high mounted HPs, however, there are no pros, so height becomes an hinderance.

[Felbombling]

When complaints about height start, they are from people who are flaberghasted that, for example, a 70-ton Grasshopper ends up being the same height as a 100-ton Atlas. I don't think the position of the hard points really comes into play in these first impressions. People who enjoy the lore of the Battletech universe have an expectation that there will be scale for the Mechs, and that scale tends to follow weight. Having Mechs taller/thinner/wider than others from a wide range of weights is bothersome.

I think it can be a balancing mechanic if the front and side profiles are considered and done properly. Should non-jumping Mechs be given a height advantage? Well, that goes out the window when you add jump capability to traditionally non-jumping chassis like the Dire Wolf or Timber Wolf.

Personally, I'd prefer that the Mechs had a size that more or less matched up with their actual weight. I think Mechs end up being more easily identified in that way and it would just feel better, from a common sense angle.

[Escef]

StaggerCheck, on 05 July 2015 - 07:27 AM, said:

People who enjoy the lore of the Battletech universe have an expectation that there will be scale for the Mechs, and that scale tends to follow weight.

Honestly, lore is all over the place on mech dimensions. Lore states that technicians have roomy areas inside of Thorn battlemechs that allow them to access and maintain deeply planted components. The Thorn is only 25 tons.

[FupDup]

Escef, on 05 July 2015 - 07:41 AM, said:

Honestly, lore is all over the place on mech dimensions. Lore states that technicians have roomy areas inside of Thorn battlemechs that allow them to access and maintain deeply planted components. The Thorn is only 25 tons.

Actually it's just 20 tons, which is even crazier.

[One Medic Army]

StaggerCheck, on 05 July 2015 - 07:27 AM, said:

When complaints about height start, they are from people who are flaberghasted that, for example, a 70-ton Grasshopper ends up being the same height as a 100-ton Atlas. I don't think the position of the hard points really comes into play in these first impressions. People who enjoy the lore of the Battletech universe have an expectation that there will be scale for the Mechs, and that scale tends to follow weight. Having Mechs taller/thinner/wider than others from a wide range of weights is bothersome.

I think it can be a balancing mechanic if the front and side profiles are considered and done properly. Should non-jumping Mechs be given a height advantage? Well, that goes out the window when you add jump capability to traditionally non-jumping chassis like the Dire Wolf or Timber Wolf.

Personally, I'd prefer that the Mechs had a size that more or less matched up with their actual weight. I think Mechs end up being more easily identified in that way and it would just feel better, from a common sense angle.

According to the lore all mechs are roughly the same height, and the Grasshopper is indeed taller than the Atlas. Seriously, this is according to the tabletop info.

Really though, I disregard total height and instead pay attention to the amount of mech exposed when firing. A Jager wouldn't be better if it was shorter, because who cares how much of the mech is hidden behind a hill when it's poking with stubby little arms mounted at cockpit level? Aiming is so laughably easy in this game, the only way you're likely to miss is due to target movement, which tends to be entirely in the horizontal plane (thus wide mechs dodge less fire via moving).

Edited by One Medic Army, 05 July 2015 - 08:15 AM.

[1453 R]

The 'discussions' about height are because people are making breathtakingly stupid decisions about which 'Mechs desperately need rescaling because they are, as stated, 'flabberghasted' that some 'Mechs are taller than other 'Mechs which also just so happen to be heavier. It's incredibly asinine because it means 'Mechs like the Shadow Hawk or Grasshopper, which do not need any help in this department, are getting the nod over things like the Trebuchet or the Mad Dog, which are both badly impacted by poor scaling and are significantly more vulnerable to fire because of their size.

We have a chance to fix things that actually need fixing. This is our one shot to get the worst mis-scaled 'Mechs back in the shop for an overhaul...and you folks are wasting it on Shadow Hawks and Grasshoppers.

Yeah, that makes the rest of us who want to pilot Mad Dogs not bigger than Timber Wolves, or who want Novas to not be as big as assault 'Mechs, extremely frogging angry. We get one chance at this. Why, why, why, why, why, WHY are you boneheads voting for Shadow Hawks?!

[C E Dwyer]

The width of a mech and how its hit boxes are constructed has far more reaching effects on how a mech works, when the game is fluid, mobile, and interesting.

Height in general has little effect on performance except in cases where the game play is dull stationary, and the vast majority, is just corner poking, as it means there are less practical buildings to cower behind, and lurms can fall in a more shallow angle. to do damage ( note stationary play is the only time when LRM's can be considered worth taking, for anything other than shits and giggles)

So basically people calling for height reductions are promoting dull boring game play, and will then cry tears about how LRM's are OP

[Juodas Varnas]

One Medic Army, on 05 July 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

According to the lore all mechs are roughly the same height, and the Grasshopper is indeed taller than the Atlas. Seriously, this is according to the tabletop info.

That's because Atlas isn't supposed to be an extremely tall mech, like it is in MWO.
It's short and fat with a big-ass head.

But i guess it's not as "cool" as something that's larger than a building and is as easy to hit as one.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 05 July 2015 - 08:12 AM.

[Lostdragon]

Width is a much bigger deal than height. When I miss a moving target it is usually because I didn't lead it properly, not because I shot over it.

[OznerpaG]

mech height is irrelevant. hardpoint height in relation to the cockpit is what counts. nobody with experience playing the game shoots at the tallest mech, they shoot at the first mech they see, the most damaged mech, or the biggest threat


mech scaling sounds like 'cleanup' work to be done after gameplay and balance is done - is MWO at that point in development yet? if it's done in conjunction with re-visiting the earliest mechs released to do their dynamic weapons pass then cool, but PGI should be methodically redoing those mechs 1 by 1, not asking us which ones to work on

Edited by JagdFlanker, 05 July 2015 - 03:45 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Juodas Varnas, on 05 July 2015 - 08:11 AM, said:

That's because Atlas isn't supposed to be an extremely tall mech, like it is in MWO.
It's short and fat with a big-ass head.

Come again?

"Nearly fifteen meters tall, massing one hundred tons, the Atlas was among the very largest of all 'Mechs in the field, a powerhouse monster that could stand up to incredible punishment without folding." - Tactics of Duty, ch. 29

"Tall, massive, its cockpit painted to resemble a repulsively grinning skull-face, a huge Atlas stepped out of the falling snow." - Dagger Point, ch. 22

"General Kerensky himself set down the specifications for the Atlas. He said it should be 'a 'Mech as powerful as possible, as impenetrable as possible, and as ugly and foreboding as conceivable, so that fear itself will be our ally.'" - TRO 3025
"Ugly and foreboding are two apt descriptions for the Atlas. Though some 'Mechs might be taller and heavier, none have the Atlas' aura." - TRO 3025

None of those support the notion that the Atlas should be "short and fat with a big head"; indeed, most descriptions describe the Atlas as massive and intimidating.

[Juodas Varnas]

Strum Wealh, on 05 July 2015 - 12:07 PM, said:

Come again?

"Nearly fifteen meters tall, massing one hundred tons, the Atlas was among the very largest of all 'Mechs in the field, a powerhouse monster that could stand up to incredible punishment without folding." - Tactics of Duty, ch. 29

"Tall, massive, its cockpit painted to resemble a repulsively grinning skull-face, a huge Atlas stepped out of the falling snow." - Dagger Point, ch. 22

"General Kerensky himself set down the specifications for the Atlas. He said it should be 'a 'Mech as powerful as possible, as impenetrable as possible, and as ugly and foreboding as conceivable, so that fear itself will be our ally.'" - TRO 3025
"Ugly and foreboding are two apt descriptions for the Atlas. Though some 'Mechs might be taller and heavier, none have the Atlas' aura." - TRO 3025

None of those support the notion that the Atlas should be "short and fat with a big head"; indeed, most descriptions describe the Atlas as massive and intimidating.

Touché, but the "Short and fat" was sort of a hyperbole, i don't know if you've heard of them, but most of what i say are hyperboles and exaggerations, so i can be pretty annoying to talk to.
However, i'm not going to argue that it's not supposed to be massive, because it is, definitely is supposed to be big and scary, but it was never the *tallest* mech around (which in MWO, i THINK it is). All i'm saying is that maybe the executioner should be visually taller (like not much, just enough to see that it's a tall ************) than the Atlas.

Sadly, Atlas (for me) is probably the least scary 100 tonner to run into, turning a corner. It's big. Easy to hit. And pretty lightly armed when compared to monsters like the Daishi.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 05 July 2015 - 12:15 PM.

[Soy]

if you are the big big tree
i am the small axe
ready to cut you down (well sharp)
to cut you down..!

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 05 July 2015 - 12:07 PM, said:

Come again?

"Nearly fifteen meters tall, massing one hundred tons, the Atlas was among the very largest of all 'Mechs in the field, a powerhouse monster that could stand up to incredible punishment without folding." - Tactics of Duty, ch. 29

"Tall, massive, its cockpit painted to resemble a repulsively grinning skull-face, a huge Atlas stepped out of the falling snow." - Dagger Point, ch. 22

"General Kerensky himself set down the specifications for the Atlas. He said it should be 'a 'Mech as powerful as possible, as impenetrable as possible, and as ugly and foreboding as conceivable, so that fear itself will be our ally.'" - TRO 3025
"Ugly and foreboding are two apt descriptions for the Atlas. Though some 'Mechs might be taller and heavier, none have the Atlas' aura." - TRO 3025

None of those support the notion that the Atlas should be "short and fat with a big head"; indeed, most descriptions describe the Atlas as massive and intimidating.

Massive and intimidating is not the same as tall. In fact only one even lists the height, and it is a novel quoted, in direct contrast to the stated heights that CGL gives for mechs (8-14 meters).
http://bg.battletech...tlemech-height/

Also taken from the 3025 TRO:
"Ugly and foreboding are two apt descriptions for the Atlas. Though some 'Mechs might be taller and heavier, none have the Atlas' aura. "


Whereas several mechs are canon TT supplement described as noted for their height, like the Executioner, Summoner, Victor, Banshee and Grasshopper.

As for "Massive and intimidating" which is morseo?


Hafthór Júlíus Björnsson at 2.06 m (6'9¨)

or


Manute Bol, at 2.31m ('77")

Just out of curiosity.

[Gorgo7]

Clearly you have never shared the same space with a very tall man, skinny, fat or 'roided out.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gorgo7, on 05 July 2015 - 01:28 PM, said:

Clearly you have never shared the same space with a very tall man, skinny, fat or 'roided out.

I'm 6'3", my best friend is 6'8" and I have a coworker who is 7'1".

[El Bandito]

I was one of the people who had championed hard for the Grasshopper to be included in game before Black Knight, but even I did not touch the mech when PGI revealed just how tall they made it. I will only buy it if the size is reduced, no ifs, ands, or buts.

One Medic Army, on 05 July 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

According to the lore all mechs are roughly the same height, and the Grasshopper is indeed taller than the Atlas. Seriously, this is according to the tabletop info.

Really though, I disregard total height and instead pay attention to the amount of mech exposed when firing. A Jager wouldn't be better if it was shorter, because who cares how much of the mech is hidden behind a hill when it's poking with stubby little arms mounted at cockpit level? Aiming is so laughably easy in this game, the only way you're likely to miss is due to target movement, which tends to be entirely in the horizontal plane (thus wide mechs dodge less fire via moving).

Let alone Atlas, Grasshopper is even shorter than Banshee. My sources generally say Atlas is taller than the Banshee. So if Banshee is shorter than Atlas, then Grasshopper should not be of the same height as the Atlas.

Edited by El Bandito, 05 July 2015 - 04:18 PM.