18 replies to this topic

[Tremor]

This patch I noticed an increasing trend in the very disproportionate nature of many of the 'mechs released... in particular when I saw a Centurion and a Stalker standing side by side -- at what seemed to be nearly the same height.

Now I've always felt that several of the 'mechs were scaled incorrectly when implemented, but I think at this point this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I personally believe 'mechs should be resized to appropriate proportions and heights, and more attention should be payed to this detail in the future. Any 'mech with a large model to low tonnage ratio is going to be a gimped chassis. The opposite is true for small models with high tonnages being powerful.

I suggest models could take total model area and 'mech in to account propotionately with tonnage of each 'mech. Here are the Chassis I believe need tweaking.

Jenner - Too small. 35 tons and almost the same size as Commando?
Hunchback - Maybe a little big? Seems a little big for half the weight of an atlas
Centurion - Way big. Could use a lot of scaling down.
Stalker - Seems really small for an assault. I was expecting something a lot larger.

I guess post feedback below. I hope I am not alone.

[Kibble]

I Agree that the sizes need to be looked at.

Edited by Kibble, 20 December 2012 - 06:56 PM.

[Miken]

Maps are so small, or it's just huge mechs.

[Elder Thorn]

i agree with OP

[Tremor]

I really like the relative size difference chart you posted, thank you for that.

From talking to others on TS I had way more agreement than I see here on the forum. I hope the devs take a look at the size of their models in the future, even if they don't go back and fix the ones we already have.

[CommieKazie]

I definitely agree with you. Stalker is much too small, and Centurion is too big.
I'm pretty sure the complaint about the Centurion has been going around for awhile now though, and they haven't done anything with it.

And a question for me, did the CT of the Dragon get reduced on this last patch? Or am I just really unobservant?

[Rocket2Uranus]

yeah. if light mechs are going to be scaled down.
a heavy shot or critical shot against light mechs should knock them off their feet.
and lag shields should be fixed.

because even as is, light mechs are hard to hit. and on top of their BS Lag shield it'll just make them immortal on the battlefield.

[Tremor]

This thread is not so much about the latency issues as it is the scale of the models in the game. Of the light 'mechs, the Jenner is the only one that really needs to be resized larger. Maybe the Commando could be a little skinnier. The 'lag sheild' issue should work itself out as the game is optimized.

It is really hard to tell if they've modified any of the 'mechs throughout the patches, because they never put it in the patch notes. I am, of course, in no way criticizing the devs. Let's face it, this is an amazing game. I am just putting forth the opinion that I think the scaling needs revisiting. Hopefully enough people agree for them to take a look at it.

[ltwally]

Tremor, on 20 December 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

This patch I noticed an increasing trend in the very disproportionate nature of many of the 'mechs released... in particular when I saw a Centurion and a Stalker standing side by side -- at what seemed to be nearly the same height.

The Centurion is also a thin-bodied mech, whereas the Stalker is a fat-bodied mech. Their side profiles are completely different.

Quote

Jenner - Too small. 35 tons and almost the same size as Commando?

The difference is much more noticeable when you are in one or the other. Also, again, keep in mind that the Commando is a skinny mech with a much smaller side-profile. From the side, a Jenner looks like some sort of space vessel with legs.

Quote

Hunchback - Maybe a little big? Seems a little big for half the weight of an atlas

Perhaps -- though the Atlas is pretty wide, with those large shoulders and arms.

Quote

Centurion - Way big. Could use a lot of scaling down.

Disagree. It's a good size

Quote

Stalker - Seems really small for an assault. I was expecting something a lot larger.

Again, look at the Stalker from the side. It's the length of 3 Centurions. Huge side profile. Can't miss it from that direction.


To summarise, I respect your opinion, but completely disagree. You're looking at things mostly in 2-dimensions. You need to think Volume, not Area. The proportions are just fine as-is.

[Deathz Jester]

ltwally, on 21 December 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

To summarise, I respect your opinion, but completely disagree. You're looking at things mostly in 2-dimensions. You need to think Volume, not Area. The proportions are just fine as-is.

The K2 (and for that matter all Catapults) take up more space than a Stalker. So..uh you would be wrong, the proportions are not fine as is.

[ltwally]

Iron Harlequin, on 21 December 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

The K2 (and for that matter all Catapults) take up more space than a Stalker. So..uh you would be wrong, the proportions are not fine as is.

I must confess -- without a good, up-close look (or resorting to sensor data), I find myself confusing the two.

But is the Stalker too small, or is the Catapult too large?

Given the large side-aspect on the Cat, and it's non-to-small size from front/rear, if anything it might be a little large for a 65 tonne mech.

When the side-aspect / length of the Stalker is factored in, it really doesn't need enlarging any. Its equipment is merely taking more space along the Z-axis, rather than X / Y.

Again, volume. Not area.

[Deathz Jester]

ltwally, on 21 December 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

I must confess -- without a good, up-close look (or resorting to sensor data), I find myself confusing the two.

But is the Stalker too small, or is the Catapult too large?

Given the large side-aspect on the Cat, and it's non-to-small size from front/rear, if anything it might be a little large for a 65 tonne mech.

When the side-aspect / length of the Stalker is factored in, it really doesn't need enlarging any. Its equipment is merely taking more space along the Z-axis, rather than X / Y.

Again, volume. Not area.

Please enlighten us as to what the volume of a Catapult & a stalker are.

[Tvae]

http://mwomercs.com/...hs/page__st__20

This thread shows a great comparison of the different mech sizes based on their in game models, making it pretty easy to see the issues. For the most part it's not bad, but there's a few discrepancies that throw the whole chart out of whack.

My thoughts (based on those charts):

Jenner and Stalker slightly larger.
Raven, Cicada, Hunchback, Dragon and Catapult slightly smaller.
Centurion much smaller.

Commando, Cataphract, Awesome and Atlas are fine (or at least, would be with some changes).

This is completely based on their scale vs. tonnage, and gives no thought to how such changes would effect balance (although only the Catapult really seems to be going in the wrong direction in that regards, from my perspective).

[Corvus Antaka]

Kibble, on 20 December 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

I Agree that the sizes need to be looked at.

<3

[LynxFury]

I'd be just satisfied to hear the devs have run volume checks against the mech and they are about right within 10% or so of being the same density.

[Tremor]

I'd hate to say it, Itwally, but I am not sure what 'mechs you are looking at. Look at the data presented and keep in mind that the Centurion is a 50 ton 'mech. Same as a Hunchback. So why the huge difference?

That alone is worth a change. But the fact that the Centurion looks more akin to the heavies than the mediums is a doozy. And the Jenner barely has more of a profile than the Commando does. In my opinion, not a 10 ton difference.

Thank you Tvae. I hadn't seen this link before.

Edit: I am out of town, so I don't have access to photoshop. Otherwise I would scale the chart via the Commando to compare the 'mechs to their expected approximate heights. The width of all the 'mechs will notably be off, as MWO has a thicker redesign for most chassis.

Edited by Tremor, 22 December 2012 - 07:35 AM.

[Lerzpftz]

Uhm ...

Take a 50 ton mech of any shape and assume it's volume is 1 unit. Now take a second mech and
make it 25% percent higher, wider and longer. Still remember that first mech having a volume of 1? Great.
Let us multiply 1.25 and 1.25 and 1.25 just for the fun of it. The result is about 1,95.

That is 50 tons * 1,95 = 97,5 tons. So taking a random 50 ton chassis and scaling it up by 25% in every
direction, almost doubles it's mass. This means an atlas should not be much higher than an HBK for example.

That said, the step from getting to 85 tons of a stalker by scaling a 65 tons catapult a little, is very small. :-)

Edited by Lerzpftz, 22 December 2012 - 10:01 AM.

[Ranzear]

Commando, Hunchback, and Atlas are about right. Mech weight is more about being able to support things in the internal space than just Volume to Mass ratio.

Either the Cicada and Raven are too big, or the Jenner is too small.

Centurion is way too big. I think that's 90% of the problem with the mech acually. It has the profile of a mech with twice as much armor. How often have you turned around on a hit indicator to see this huge *** thing in your face, only to say "Oh, it's just a Centurion, What, me worry?"

Centurions and Hunchbacks should have roughly the same leg size considering their absolute similarities, so the Cent is easily 10% too big or more.

Catapult is too big. Compare the missile racks of an Awesome to the missle racks of a Catapult, and it's also still bigger than a Cataphract which is 5 tons heavier.

Dragon is a smidge large for the side profile it presents, plus being 20 tons lighter than a Phract.

Stalker's torso is too narrow and short, or the legs are too big and the whole mech is too small.

Easiest way to see how the scaling of mechs is out of whack is to look at leg sizes. The Centurion is the same weight as a hunchback but looks like it has the legs of a Heavy. A Jenner's legs are the same side as a Commando's despite being 40% heavier.

Stalkers have a weird profile all around (tiny from the front, barn from the side), but their legs are enormous! But even stranger is the Catapult's legs being the same dimensions just less bulky, while the Phract's legs are the same style and appearance but way smaller.

Edited by Ranzear, 22 December 2012 - 10:29 AM.

[Tremor]

created.

Ranzear, on 22 December 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

Centurion is way too big. I think that's 90% of the problem with the mech acually. It has the profile of a mech with twice as much armor. How often have you turned around on a hit indicator to see this huge *** thing in your face, only to say "Oh, it's just a Centurion, What, me worry?"

Centurions and Hunchbacks should have roughly the same leg size considering their absolute similarities, so the Cent is easily 10% too big or more.

I really agree with most of this. In particular the quoted section. I am sure the devs must have noticed this issue.

My only concern is that they are more interested in moving forward and not messing with the models they have already.