378 replies to this topic

[Corwin Vickers]

Anyone ever do any volume tests on the mech sizes?

[Neolisk]

Roland, on 27 April 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

Not having lower arm actuators is actually beneficial in most cases, in mwo.

Not when you are being outrun by lighter mechs.

Removing arm actuators should be possible.

[neviu]

the spider is to big

[Badconduct]

Hellcat420, on 23 April 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:

tonnage is a measure of weight, not height or width.

There's no correlation, I'm sure....

[SMDMadCow]

Badconduct, on 28 April 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

There's no correlation, I'm sure....

Which weighs more, 100 Lbs of Lead or 100 Lbs of Feathers?
Which one takes up more space?

[Keifomofutu]

SMDMadCow, on 29 April 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

Which weighs more, 100 Lbs of Lead or 100 Lbs of Feathers?
Which one takes up more space?

We don't have a 100ton tetatae yet so I don't see your point?

[Nauht]

With all he arguments about equipment size - think of it as components specifically made for that weight class or weapons made by different manufacturers.

Like there are tons of 5.56mm rifles out there, all different shapes and sizes but they still fire the 5.56. Same for different model 20mm cannons, .50 cal weapons. Each weapon is different sizes yet the have the same effect firing the same calibre bullet.

The same for engine sizes. A 2L WRX can have the same acceleration and performance as a Porsche, depending on the mods done to it.

I don't see a problem with actual components, just the size of the mechs. Like I said there can't be any other explanation than some mechs are hollow to count for the size. Wires weigh the same. Bigger engines for bigger mechs to haul heavier weights - so why is a catapult more bulkier than the stalker? Or a dragon as tall and as wide but a bigger protuding chest than an atlas but 40 tons lighter

[Dennis de Koning]

Wow!
This topic has really grown legs hasn't it?
There were a lot of factors that went into deciding the relative scale of the 'Mechs.
I see quite a few side-by-side silhouette comparisons, most of which are front view only.
There are a few misinterpretations of weight derived from this type of comparison such as the fact that some 'Mechs have a pronounced profile that is not evident in a front view pose.
A better representation would be front and side views simultaneously and in silhouette.
Also, keep in mind that the bulk of the weight should be assumed to be carried in the torso, where the engine is, and not dispersed evenly throughout the chassis.
Another point to note is missile boxes such as on the Catapult are mostly empty space and therefore can't be given much credit for mass despite their relatively large scale.
Also, the 'Mechs were (are) designed individually as opposed to all at once; the more we create, the more difficult it is to fit them into the scale chart without some discrepancy.

As for similar barrel (caliber) size differences, this is purely aesthetic. If we were to put the same scale of (similar caliber) barrel on every 'Mech, things would get a little wonky. We do however try to keep them within 10-15% of the original. This goes for missile hole as well.
Sometimes people forget that we aren't making the stats for the 'Mechs; they are predetermined. Some 'Mechs have stats that would cause (weight) imbalance or would look odd and so we try to mitigate that.
Trust me when I say that the visceral realism is of priority concern to me and I try to maintain it ad nauseum. There are no willy-nilly decisions made. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but someone has to make the final call and no call is made without discussing it with the concept artist and modellers.
I hope this addresses some of your concerns on this subject.

[Tennex]

Dennis de Koning, on 29 April 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

Wow!
This topic has really grown legs hasn't it?
There were a lot of factors that went into deciding the relative scale of the 'Mechs.
I see quite a few side-by-side silhouette comparisons, most of which are front view only.
There are a few misinterpretations of weight derived from this type of comparison such as the fact that some 'Mechs have a pronounced profile that is not evident in a front view pose.
A better representation would be front and side views simultaneously and in silhouette.
Also, keep in mind that the bulk of the weight should be assumed to be carried in the torso, where the engine is, and not dispersed evenly throughout the chassis.
Another point to note is missile boxes such as on the Catapult are mostly empty space and therefore can't be given much credit for mass despite their relatively large scale.
Also, the 'Mechs were (are) designed individually as opposed to all at once; the more we create, the more difficult it is to fit them into the scale chart without some discrepancy.

As for similar barrel (caliber) size differences, this is purely aesthetic. If we were to put the same scale of (similar caliber) barrel on every 'Mech, things would get a little wonky. We do however try to keep them within 10-15% of the original. This goes for missile hole as well.
Sometimes people forget that we aren't making the stats for the 'Mechs; they are predetermined. Some 'Mechs have stats that would cause (weight) imbalance or would look odd and so we try to mitigate that.
Trust me when I say that the visceral realism is of priority concern to me and I try to maintain it ad nauseum. There are no willy-nilly decisions made. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but someone has to make the final call and no call is made without discussing it with the concept artist and modellers.
I hope this addresses some of your concerns on this subject.

BTW. awesome job making the mechs look awesome and consistent. <-- my biggest pet peeve in video game art.


I know its not what you're being paid to do. But i think balance should be approached form a holistic point of view.

For example balancing the weapon damage can only do so much. We saw form the Artemis changes, that a weapon's behavior and mechanic has much more of an impact on balance than numbers alone.

That being said. Medium mechs are very underplayed and underpowered right now. And some changes in profile size will be a huge help. http://mwomercs.com/...*****-balanced/


As far as the poll goes. A lot of Battletech fans and old MW game players are used to a certain type of scaling that was used in all previous mechwarrior games. Mech sizes in other MW games generally do not cross weight class barriers.

Zakie Chan, on 25 April 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

for example the hunchback is expected to be bulkier than the centurion while still being the same size because it packs more armor.

Edited by Tennex, 29 April 2013 - 05:53 PM.

[Dennis de Koning]

Yes, it is, but rescaling 'Mechs is not as easy as one might think.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Dennis de Koning, on 29 April 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

Yes, it is, but rescaling 'Mechs is not as easy as one might think.

Yeah Id imagine once theyre in game theyre not easily moddable

[Tennex]

Dennis de Koning, on 29 April 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

Yes, it is, but rescaling 'Mechs is not as easy as one might think.

thanks for taking time to address these concerns.

i know the schedule at PGI is tight.

maybe in the future when there is better technology or more time. these mechs can be resized. I'm going to keep my fingers crossed for that and for harder to hit medium mechs lol

Edited by Tennex, 29 April 2013 - 06:13 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Tennex, on 29 April 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

thanks for taking time to address these concerns.

i know the schedule at PGI is tight.

maybe in the future when there is better technology or more time. these mechs can be resized. I'm going to keep my fingers crossed for that and for harder to hit medium mechs lol

I dunno, seems to me that the longer theyre in the game the LESS likely players would accept a change in the mech sizes theyve come to accept till then.
The longer things are the same, the more static they become

[Solis Obscuri]

The Stalker is enormous from the side profile and can't turn or twist worth crap. It's incredibly vulnerable to fast skirmishers (even by assault standards) and hardly a "small" target from any facing.

The Treb and Centurion appear somewhat large relative to the Hunchback, but have much more forgiving hitboxes that tend to spread damage around, giving them good survivability for their size and armor quantities. Many of their variants are also very fast, making them potent skirmishers. The Centurion seems particularly tanky indeed - sometimes i suspect it may actually have some sort of damage transfer bug with its internals, and the arm-mounted autocannons are very unlikely to crit before the arm itself is destroyed.

I would say if anything in the game needed adjustment, it's the hitboxes on the Awesome and Raven. The Awesome seems to get hit nowhere but the CT, unless the pilot does a very good job of using his arms for shields, and despite being supposedly "fixed" the Raven still seems to have an odd way of mitigating incoming damage unless it's struck dead on from the front or rear. The Highlander also has a bit of a tendency to take CT damage at a faster rate than the Stalker or Atlas rather than spreading to the side torsos - though I suppose that can be a good deal for the XL-engined variant.

Edited by Solis Obscuri, 29 April 2013 - 09:13 PM.

[DaZur]

Just a little mustard for the hot dog...

Having done some 3D contract work for a few games I know a thing or two about the difficulties of adjusting stuff once the asset is "in game"...

Changing the scale of the model is the easy part... Secondary to adjusting that, the "swap parts" (different part models for say Gauss versus an AC/10) the descending level-of-detail models and lastly and probably the most tedious, depending on what method they use, is resizing the hit box.

Some games use a low poly LOD of the physical model mesh (most accurate) some use the point/vertex volume (second most accurate) and others use basic geometric hit boxes (least accurate). With the point and geometric box methods it requires re-creating the object volumes and making sure they align with the physical models. Also depending upon how they implement animations, that too may be affected by scaling... lastly all the vertex origins of where the weapon effects come from would need to be adjusted.

Long and short... I can empathize with the tedium of re-scaling an in-game asset and the ancillary work associated with it and can with no reservation say it's not for the faint of heart or for those pressed for time...

Edited by DaZur, 01 May 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[Henchman 24]

Why do people continually equate height with weight?

Seriously, it's like parking a lifted F450 4x4 next to an Abrams would somehow make it weigh more because it's taller.

Get a grip.

[Tennex]

Henchman 24, on 30 April 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

Why do people continually equate height with weight?

Seriously, it's like parking a lifted F450 4x4 next to an Abrams would somehow make it weigh more because it's taller.

Get a grip.

i don't think its fair to compare a tank with bloated truck.

Those things have completely different funciton. we are talking about comparisons between very similar things with similar function.

if anything comparison of a sherman to an abrams would be more like the comparisons we are making.

the sherman is 30 tons and 3/5 the size of the 60ton abrams


unless we are assuming the trebie is bloated like a lifted 4x4?

Edited by Tennex, 30 April 2013 - 09:44 AM.

[SMDMadCow]

Keifomofutu, on 29 April 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

We don't have a 100ton tetatae yet so I don't see your point?

Density.
Which most of the forum posters have but seem to have forgotten about in this thread.

[Keifomofutu]

SMDMadCow, on 30 April 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

Density.
Which most of the forum posters have but seem to have forgotten about in this thread.

You'd have to prove that different mechs have significantly different density. And I don't see how you would do that. They all pack similar myomers, weapons, and armor. They are built so alike that these weapons, engines, and heatsinks are all interchangeable among different mechs.

And regardless of all that a mech at 50tons on the horizon being virtually the same size as a 70 ton mech is always going to feel "off" no matter how you try to justify it. It's also always going to be easier to hit from the front which is what matters most in combat.

[SMDMadCow]

Keifomofutu, on 30 April 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

And regardless of all that a mech at 50tons on the horizon being virtually the same size as a 70 ton mech is always going to feel &quot;off&quot; no matter how you try to justify it. It's also always going to be easier to hit from the front which is what matters most in combat.

I wasnt debating that, thanks for reading.