83 replies to this topic

[Skye Storm]

Suprentus for the win.

[101011]

Foxx, on 23 April 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

This may sound a little crazy, but in the heat of battle I actually mistook a Centurion for a Highlander. It was only for a split second before I actually got a good look, but still, that's definitely a sign the scaling is off.

I don't know if I'm just terrible at silhouette recognition, or if this is a legitimate problem, because I often struggle to differentiate between the two in my Jenner (at 150 kph, from the rear, between buildings).

[Tennex]

Suprentus, on 23 April 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

This really escapes you people? That's like asking why the girl on the right is as big as the girl on the left, and wondering why the left is heavier.



Now compare the Cent and Awesome.



It's really not hard to see why the Awesome's heavier.

anyone want to do some water displacement studies. volume studies or whatever.

the volume argument sounds good. but honestly unless u can prove that the Treb is 2/3 volume of the awesome. u don't have a case.

Edited by Tennex, 23 April 2013 - 11:27 AM.

[Suprentus]

Tennex, on 23 April 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

anyone want to do some water displacement studies. volume studies or whatever.

the density argument sounds good. but honestly unless u can prove that the Treb is 2/3 volume of the awesome. u don't have a case.

I posted pics of the Awesome and Cent. You can obviously see the Awesome is way fatter and bulkier than the Cent. Do you really need water displacement studies for that? Your very own sig pic shows the difference in scale.

[Tennex]

Suprentus, on 23 April 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

I posted pics of the Awesome and Cent. You can obviously see the Awesome is way fatter and bulkier than the Cent. Do you really need water displacement studies for that? Your very own sig pic shows the difference in scale.

i can obviously see that they are the same height. Volume is harder to compare. and unless actual measurements can be provided to compare it.. all you can say is that one seems bulkier than the other.

Edited by Tennex, 23 April 2013 - 11:32 AM.

[Sephlock]

Its because all the mechs were re-imagined and/or tweaked after the zoot suit aesthetic:

Edited by Sephlock, 23 April 2013 - 11:34 AM.

[Jess Hazen]

Your suggested argument for a volume check is bogus. Unless you see the point of uniformly filling the hollow structurue insides of a mech with armours.

[Zerberus]

Wrenchfarm, on 23 April 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

The Treb (50 ton support mech) is just as tall as an Atlas (100 ton doom-bringer). I think it's safe to say they got the scale a little wrong.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAA!!!

NOT!!

Standing on level ground, a Highlander is the only thing who`s cockpit I don`t have to aim DOWN to hit.

[One Medic Army]

Suprentus, on 23 April 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

I posted pics of the Awesome and Cent. You can obviously see the Awesome is way fatter and bulkier than the Cent. Do you really need water displacement studies for that? Your very own sig pic shows the difference in scale.

It's a bit irrelevant.
Silhouette is what needs to be compared, not volume.
From the pictures the silhouette of the Centurion is only slightly smaller than that of the Awesome (which is already a barn-door on legs).

Now put the Treb up and you'll see that it's got a similar frontal profile to both the Cent and the Awesome, or in other words when shooting at the darn thing it's too large of a target to miss, even when moving at speeds of 115kph or more.

[Tennex]

Tennex, on 23 April 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

anyone want to do some water displacement studies. volume studies or whatever.

the volume argument sounds good. but honestly unless u can prove that the Treb is 2/3 volume of the awesome. u don't have a case.

I did some rough area measurements of the Awesome and the Centurion. (front profile area)
Centurion came out to be 4709 pixels. The awesome came out to be 6196 pixels.

The centurion is 76% the size of the awesome.
which means the Centurion is currently the size of a 60ton mech.

Edited by Tennex, 23 April 2013 - 12:03 PM.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Better question is why is the Stalker so ********* small.

[One Medic Army]

AntiCitizenJuan, on 23 April 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

Better question is why is the Stalker so ********* small.

The original reason is that it's friggin huge when seen from the side, and in close range blowing off the side torsos is super easy.
Of course, when nobody closes enough to take advantage of the fact...

[Abrahms]

Suprentus, on 23 April 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

This really escapes you people? That's like asking why the girl on the right is as big as the girl on the left, and wondering why the left is heavier.



Now compare the Cent and Awesome.



It's really not hard to see why the Awesome's heavier.

actually, youre wrong. Look at ALL the mechs next to each other, and youll see the huge inconsistency and the reason that the hunchback is 100x better than the centurion.

The hunchback has a very small profile and tiny arms. The right torso may be larger, but overall, its not so large as to be crippling - its actually easier to hit a centurions massively WIDE right torso. Wideness usually makes you an easier target than TALL because you move horizontally.

Firing at and leading a centurion is almost a guaranteed hit. Add in damage transfer, and no lag shield for you.

Compare the jenner to the cicida, the cent to the awesome, etc, and youll notice that overall, this game has REALLY bad mech scaling. The Stalker is so GOOD because it is extremely small for an assault mech. The awesome is bad because its a walking target.

At the end of the day, being missed = more more survivability that having a lot of armor. Which is why lagshield used to be so OP (and is still good) on light mechs.

[Trey Mendus]

I am surprised these haven't been posted yet:

Size comparison from the front and the side

Size comparison from above

edit:: you also have to consider the hitboxes

Edited by Trey Mendus, 23 April 2013 - 12:14 PM.

[Suprentus]

One Medic Army, on 23 April 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

It's a bit irrelevant.
Silhouette is what needs to be compared, not volume.
From the pictures the silhouette of the Centurion is only slightly smaller than that of the Awesome (which is already a barn-door on legs).

Now put the Treb up and you'll see that it's got a similar frontal profile to both the Cent and the Awesome, or in other words when shooting at the darn thing it's too large of a target to miss, even when moving at speeds of 115kph or more.

I agree, though I wouldn't say the Centurion is only slightly smaller. If you look at them, I'd say the Awesome is pretty fat all around, while the Centurion's got an itty bitty waist with a round thing in your face, and I get sprung.

Tennex, on 23 April 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

I did some rough area measurements of the Awesome and the Centurion. (front profile area)
Centurion came out to be 4709 pixels. The awesome came out to be 6196 pixels.

The centurion is 76% the "size/bulk" of the awesome.
which means the Centurion would need to be 60tons to justify its size

I was actually going to do a few pixel measurements, myself, based on your own sig. Really though, 60 tons/50 tons is not that much of a discrepancy. It's not like the in-game models are scientifically measured or anything, but it's really clear that the Centurion is undoubtedly smaller than the Awesome.

Abrahms, on 23 April 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

actually, youre wrong. Look at ALL the mechs next to each other, and youll see the huge inconsistency and the reason that the hunchback is 100x better than the centurion.

The hunchback has a very small profile and tiny arms. The right torso may be larger, but overall, its not so large as to be crippling - its actually easier to hit a centurions massively WIDE right torso. Wideness usually makes you an easier target than TALL because you move horizontally.

Firing at and leading a centurion is almost a guaranteed hit. Add in damage transfer, and no lag shield for you.

Compare the jenner to the cicida, the cent to the awesome, etc, and youll notice that overall, this game has REALLY bad mech scaling. The Stalker is so GOOD because it is extremely small for an assault mech. The awesome is bad because its a walking target.

At the end of the day, being missed = more more survivability that having a lot of armor. Which is why lagshield used to be so OP (and is still good) on light mechs.

Ummm...thanks? I'm not really arguing how much easier it is to hit or be hit. I'm just making an observation on size.

Edited by Suprentus, 23 April 2013 - 12:06 PM.

[Apolyon]

Look at the atlas Vs another mech close to it. According to size the atlas cockpit would be a hole in the wall and others have full view glass windows.

[beniliusbob]

The Centurion's profile is amazing. Good Centurion players don't get cored until their arms are off. There are not many mechs that reliably absorb damage that way. The Hunchbacks have those beautiful bellies to shoot.

[XSerjo]

This will never ends...

Most of animals (and humans!) has nearly the same density: the density of water.

We must assume that all battlemechs have the same density (really, they're using same materials for structure, for armor, same weapon-systems).

Then we have to calculate density of all mechs and compare.

And only then we are able to say: this mech is over/under-sized!


All other approaches looks like brain-masturbation. We have to compare numbers, it's the only way, our feelings may be wrong.

Edited by XSerjo, 23 April 2013 - 12:16 PM.

[Zakie Chan]

Would Love to see the Cent scaled back a bit. I feel that it is much to wide/blocky. Here is a quick edit I made using the images already in the topic. The ratios arent perfect, and I feel the suggested version came out too short, but the overall aspect is what I would like to see.




EDIT:: Included a comparison to the posted awesome pic, the picture was not the same size as the centurion stock, but i just filled in the border with black since it was quite close.

Edited by Zakie Chan, 23 April 2013 - 12:20 PM.

[Tennex]

Zakie Chan, on 23 April 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Would Love to see the Cent scaled back a bit. I feel that it is much to wide/blocky. Here is a quick edit I made using the images already in the topic. The ratios arent perfect, and I feel the suggested version came out too short, but the overall aspect is what I would like to see.

the image on the left looks more like what they promised us in the concept art.

though i must say the bulkier look has started to grow on me

Edited by Tennex, 23 April 2013 - 12:18 PM.