378 replies to this topic

[Corvus Antaka]

General Taskeen, on 20 June 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

Well it can't be table top, since there is a manual, I forget the name, that shows some Mechs side by side, and a Centurion is shown as the same height as a Hunchback.

Maybe it's because "tabletop doesn't translate 1-1 in a simulation?"

[General Taskeen]

Ah, so that's who posted the picture originally.

[Tennex]

General Taskeen, on 21 June 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

Ah, so that's who posted the picture originally.

the profile lineup images are done by adridos..

and the volume we were able to get was by Ghogiel

[Bishop Steiner]

Tennex, on 23 April 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

since it doesn't have arm actuators. its energy weapons (lasers/ppcs) are mounted at top. so it only needs to expose 1/5 of its body to damage over a hill while dishing out full damage.

although, oddlly enough, IT DOES have arm actuators. They apparently just don't DO anything.

[Pando]

I've said size has been effed since closed beta.

[Fooooo]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 20 June 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

1. a statement from PGI as to how they are scaling/deciding on mech hieghts. are these values from tabletop?

2. if not, why are the mechs scaled as they are, why is it so hard to scale them up/down, and why are 60 ton mechs as tall as an atlas?

Most of the actual model should be easy to re-scale in 3dsmax.

Not sure about how bones and the animations would scale up tho, I haven't really done much playing around with bones in max bar making a foot with a toe that moves.

It could be something else tho, like some sort of shadows have to be redone / rebaked , or maybe something else like the textures maybe have to be redone... Tho with a small scale change they shouldn't stretch / squish too much, and Im pretty sure the UV's adjust when you rescale ???

Someone else can probably answer all this much better......

[Keifomofutu]

Fooooo, on 24 June 2013 - 01:20 AM, said:

Most of the actual model should be easy to re-scale in 3dsmax.

Not sure about how bones and the animations would scale up tho, I haven't really done much playing around with bones in max bar making a foot with a toe that moves.

It could be something else tho, like some sort of shadows have to be redone / rebaked , or maybe something else like the textures maybe have to be redone... Tho with a small scale change they shouldn't stretch / squish too much, and Im pretty sure the UV's adjust when you rescale ???

Someone else can probably answer all this much better......

However long it takes ongoing balance adjustments for ingame assets should be a basic part of a FtP game. WoT does many things wrong but one thing they do right is keeping tabs on which vehicles see the most use and most specifically their overall win rate. When a tank begins lagging it gets buffed. When it is blatantly overperforming it gets nerfed.

PGI needs to take that approach to mechs within a weight class. Start buffing mechs like awesome and dragon that lag compared to their peers. One easy place to start is hitbox adjustments. Add little buffs patch by patch until all the mechs in a weight class perform roughly equally within a set percentage of each other.

How FtP works is people give you money every month and you adjust, balance, and maintain your game as necessary. No adjustment to the assets? No money from me.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 24 June 2013 - 04:26 PM.

[Koniving]

Tennex, on 23 April 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Mechwarrior Online

I should note something for ya. In that scale you do not have the mechs standing the same way. The quickdraw and the dragon stand at exactly the same height torso-wise. The exception is the Quickdraw's head is bigger, while the Dragon's gut is bigger. You have his legs perfectly straight; they are not perfectly straight in MWO.



The Catapult's really supposed to have its launchers 2 times larger and its head as wide as its legs, so I think being tall is fine.







Now the Centurion one I will agree with. I always thought it was too wide compared to the concept art but when you look at this..


(stalker stalks)


They say the Awesome is huge and many cry its bigger than the Atlas, but...

(Also my principle reason for believing PPC damage should be dispersed over multiple body parts to divide up the damage; look at that splash!)



Quickdraw actually stands as tall as the Jagermech, which apparently stands as tall as the Awesome. Least now we have a goal for the next perfect screenshot mission.

In MechCommander 2 from the shot you provided, the Hunchback is taller than the Catapult. The Thor (heavy) and the Blood Asp (Assault) are the same height. That's an orthogonal camera too so distance is not a factor in size.

But yes, unless the mechs stand the exact same way as they do in MWO, that scale isn't particularly accurate.

[Tennex]

Koniving, on 24 June 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

I should note something for ya. In that scale you do not have the mechs standing the same way. The quickdraw and the dragon stand at exactly the same height torso-wise. The exception is the Quickdraw's head is bigger, while the Dragon's gut is bigger. You have his legs perfectly straight; they are not perfectly straight in MWO.

these images were provided by Adridos, of the mechs standing in their idle positions (as you would see them in game).

As you can see by the side profiles below. of the same mechs in the same posture but form a different angle



A ingame picture of the quickdraw:

Edited by Tennex, 24 June 2013 - 05:05 PM.

[Koniving]

Tennex, on 24 June 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

these images were provided by Adridos, of the mechs standing in their idle positions (as you would see them in game).

As you can see by the side profiles below. of the same mechs in the same posture but form a different angle

A ingame picture of the quickdraw:

Side view shows cataphract is taller than quickdraw. Your in-game shot shows Quickdraw is taller than Cataphract. Of the two the Cataphract is closer to elevation.

Thought that stance was odd; that's a Trebuchet. You don't have a quickdraw in that side shot.

But overall according to tabletop the difference between mediums and assaults is how bulky they are, as they were all about the same height. Not that I think the tabletop miniatures are worth counting but it's worth mentioning.

Edited by Koniving, 24 June 2013 - 06:41 PM.

[Dirty Old Man]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 April 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

Mass has to go somewhere. All Mechs follow the same basic architecture. And the size does not increase exponentially with mass. Unless the Trebuchet is Hollow, it clearly would have to weigh massively more than a Hunchback, which is barely 2/3 the size.

Please check Sarna or Cannon for your arguments, I think I remembered reading some chasis have more room for engineers then other models, so having a bulkier frame does not mean its filled to the brim with internals and stuff... it is just hallow?

Cheers

[Corvus Antaka]

I agree, PGI needs to re-evaluate their scaling system.

[Keifomofutu]

Dirty Old Man, on 24 June 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

Please check Sarna or Cannon for your arguments, I think I remembered reading some chasis have more room for engineers then other models, so having a bulkier frame does not mean its filled to the brim with internals and stuff... it is just hallow?

Cheers

That's what they tried to say about catapults massive missile boxes. Except when you get to the part where you stuffed 20 tons of missiles in them. Not so "hollow" anymore are they.

Useless argument anyway. Why would we be trying to be make excuses to handwave a mech being larger and less competitive than one of its peers? What would the benefit of that be? How does it help the game making quickdraw as tall as a highlander and overall larger than its heavier more well armed peers?

I don't imagine there is a real answer to that one.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 25 June 2013 - 04:27 PM.

[Tennex]

Dirty Old Man, on 24 June 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

Please check Sarna or Cannon for your arguments, I think I remembered reading some chasis have more room for engineers then other models, so having a bulkier frame does not mean its filled to the brim with internals and stuff... it is just hallow?

Cheers

though PGI has not been using cannon to scale their mechs. It seems like they just upscale or downscale randomly

[General Taskeen]

The Awesome was way skinnier even the miniatures were with skinny CT. Way better hitbox design on them fo sho.

Edited by General Taskeen, 25 June 2013 - 10:33 AM.

[Tice Daurus]

I would also vote yes for a relook at a possible size redesign. But again, there are some valid points that just because they might be higher or lower or wider or smaller in some regards it's based due to what a mech has internally for components or built differently from manufacturer to manufacturer. Remember the same company didn't build all of these, there were tens of companies building these mechs.

[Dirty Old Man]

Keifomofutu, on 24 June 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

That's what they tried to say about catapults massive missile boxes. Except when you get to the part where you stuffed 20 tons of missiles in them. Not so "hollow" anymore are they.

Useless argument anyway. Why would we be trying to be make excuses to handwave a mech being larger and less competitive than one of its peers? What would the benefit of that be? How does it help the game making quickdraw as tall as a highlander and overall larger than its heavier more well armed peers?

I don't imagine there is a real answer to that one.

AGreed as i satated to them when the Stalker came out and was same siZe as a Cat!

ALso, all these nutty designs are remakes of base references as far as 1980s......

[Strum Wealh]

In light of the Project Phoenix announcement...

HT128 Bigfoot Combat Armor (basis for BattleMaster): 11.64 meters tall & 27.04 tons
Anticipated height of MWO BattleMaster: 15-16 meters

FX4 Ironfoot Combat Armor (basis for Thunderbolt): 8.94 meters & 29.96 tons
Anticipated height of MWO Thunderbolt: 13-14 meters

Dougram Combat Armor (basis for Shadow Hawk): 9.63 meters & 20.12 tons
Anticipated height of MWO Shadow Hawk: 14-15 meter

And then the Ostall from Crusher Joe (the basis for the Locust) apparently has all manner of scaling fun to go with it (and the Locust itself).

[Tennex]

Strum Wealh, on 26 June 2013 - 07:11 AM, said:

In light of the Project Phoenix announcement...

HT128 Bigfoot Combat Armor (basis for BattleMaster): 11.64 meters tall & 27.04 tons
Anticipated height of MWO BattleMaster: 15-16 meters

FX4 Ironfoot Combat Armor (basis for Thunderbolt): 8.94 meters & 29.96 tons
Anticipated height of MWO Thunderbolt: 13-14 meters

Dougram Combat Armor (basis for Shadow Hawk): 9.63 meters & 20.12 tons
Anticipated height of MWO Shadow Hawk: 14-15 meter

And then the Ostall from Crusher Joe (the basis for the Locust) apparently has all manner of scaling fun to go with it (and the Locust itself).

the scaling from Dougram would put these 3 unseen mechs at the same size roughly.

though the mechs we have now are reseen. and belong to the MWO universe. there is no reason why we should use scaling from Dougram, a show where the mechs were all similar tonnage.

Edited by Tennex, 26 June 2013 - 01:24 PM.

[General Taskeen]

Tice Daurus, on 25 June 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

Remember the same company didn't build all of these, there were tens of companies building these mechs.

Yes, but it looks like one manufacturer made every Mech, PGI. That's fine if they want their Mechs to look how they want to, but the old art definitely had some unique flavor here and there where you could tell different Mechs definitely had their own Manufacturer style - minus the silliest very old art.