378 replies to this topic

[Keifomofutu]

Tennex, on 06 May 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

Their banner agrees

Yeah cent at the shoulder is exactly as wide as awesome. I mean wide as the awesome... I realize the whole mech isn't that wide but that isn't how aiming works. You aim at the easiest part of a mech to hit.

[Ghogiel]

If you use the game models themselves, due to mesh construction the volumes will be wildly inaccurate.

I just dropped the cent and hunch in and dyna meshed a fully enclosed model and then measured those, the scene scale is wrong, but the mechs volume and surface area can be compared between the 2 at least

http://i25.photobuck...ol.jpg~original

Edited by Ghogiel, 07 May 2013 - 05:10 AM.

[General Taskeen]

MasterBLB, on 04 May 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

I voted no.
Guys,against common feeling the weight is not scaled to sizes so much.As example,see tanks amrican Sherman M4 and german Tiger 1.The 1st one weight 30t the other 57t while having practically the same size.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/M4_Sherman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I

And a sherman was a coffin vs. ace German tank commanders. This is Battle Tech son, not the real world.

[talliz]

they should scale them according to tech manaul

[tenderloving]

MasterBLB, on 04 May 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

I voted no.
Guys,against common feeling the weight is not scaled to sizes so much.As example,see tanks amrican Sherman M4 and german Tiger 1.The 1st one weight 30t the other 57t while having practically the same size.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/M4_Sherman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I

The math is RIGHT THERE and you still relay false information.

Sherman-----Tiger
L (m) 5.84 ----- 6.316
W 2.62 ----- 3.7
H 2.74 ----- 3

m^3 41.92 ----- 70.10

That's 42 cubic meters vs 70. How is that "practically the same size?"



This comparison actually serves to show that the current sizes really are messed up when compared to what we would expect. The banner on the front page got me excited because I thought they had resized the Centurion to something more practical.

Edited by tenderloving, 08 May 2013 - 04:13 AM.

[MasterBLB]

tenderloving, on 08 May 2013 - 04:07 AM, said:

The math is RIGHT THERE and you still relay false information.

Sherman-----Tiger
L (m) 5.84 ----- 6.316
W 2.62 ----- 3.7
H 2.74 ----- 3

m^3 41.92 ----- 70.10

That's 42 cubic meters vs 70. How is that "practically the same size?"

This comparison actually serves to show that the current sizes really are messed up when compared to what we would expect. The banner on the front page got me excited because I thought they had resized the Centurion to something more practical.

This comparison was meant to show that minor difference in width,height and length might lead to major difference in weight.
And yes,you're brilliant you've discovered that cubic meters will be greater in that case;but you forgot to add average armor density to explain why it weight almost 2 times the sherman does.
So,back to topic,is the Tiger larger than Sherman(in terms of 3 dimensions)?Not so much,only one major difference is width.Has it more cubic meters and therefore more weight?Definetly.

The same corresponds to mechs.

[tenderloving]

MasterBLB, on 08 May 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

This comparison was meant to show that minor difference in width,height and length might lead to major difference in weight.
And yes,you're brilliant you've discovered that cubic meters will be greater in that case;but you forgot to add average armor density to explain why it weight almost 2 times the sherman does.
So,back to topic,is the Tiger larger than Sherman(in terms of 3 dimensions)?Not so much,only one major difference is width.Has it more cubic meters and therefore more weight?Definetly.

The same corresponds to mechs.

And your comparison is flawed. This isn't a minor difference in l/w/h:

Weight Ratio (Tiger/Sherman) 57/30 1.9

Volume Ratio (Tiger/Sherman) 70/42 1.667

Sherman Density (Weight/Volume): .714 tons/m^3
Tiger Density (Weight/Volume): .814 tons/m^3

Density Ratio (Tiger/Sherman): 1.14

The armor densities are 14% different. The size of the tank increases almost directly as the weight goes up. Once again, math wins. And yes, 1.667 times larger is significantly larger. Did you look at the picture I posted? You can definitely tell which tank is heavy and which is light. The Tiger is ******* huge compared to the Sherman.

The mech sizes are borked, and it affects the balance of the game. This trumps any arguments over tanks or armor densities or any BS you can come up with (which in this case turned out to support the OP despite your attempts otherwise.)

edit: added density ratio

Edited by tenderloving, 08 May 2013 - 08:25 AM.

[Keifomofutu]

MasterBLB, on 08 May 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

This comparison was meant to show that minor difference in width,height and length might lead to major difference in weight.
And yes,you're brilliant you've discovered that cubic meters will be greater in that case;but you forgot to add average armor density to explain why it weight almost 2 times the sherman does.
So,back to topic,is the Tiger larger than Sherman(in terms of 3 dimensions)?Not so much,only one major difference is width.Has it more cubic meters and therefore more weight?Definetly.

The same corresponds to mechs.

Dude picking the "Ronson Lighter" as an example of the medium mechs being just fine and NOT easy to kill is probably a silly idea.

[FrostCollar]

MasterBLB, on 08 May 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

So,back to topic,is the Tiger larger than Sherman(in terms of 3 dimensions)?Not so much,only one major difference is width.Has it more cubic meters and therefore more weight?Definetly.

The same corresponds to mechs.

WW2 armor compared to Battlemechs? Apples and oranges.

[Lyoto Machida]

Wow...looking at the overwhelming response on the poll. I think the Stalker should be bigger (not slightly bigger than a Catapult) and also the light mechs (though I understand why they are smaller than they should be). The Treb and Cent are kinda big. The Awesome should get some re-sizing though I'm not sure the height is the issue there...that torso is ridiculous.

[Keifomofutu]

Lyoto Machida, on 08 May 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

Wow...looking at the overwhelming response on the poll. I think the Stalker should be bigger (not slightly bigger than a Catapult) and also the light mechs (though I understand why they are smaller than they should be). The Treb and Cent are kinda big. The Awesome should get some re-sizing though I'm not sure the height is the issue there...that torso is ridiculous.

They put "Wide Load" on the back of awesome as part of the buccaneer camo.

[General Taskeen]

Keifomofutu, on 08 May 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

They put "Wide Load" on the back of awesome as part of the buccaneer camo.

[ThunderHart]

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

Why is the terbie/cent as big as the awesome?

There is a 30 ton difference between the two medium mechs and the assault mech.

Why are they the same size?


We saw from the performance of the 80 stalker during the tournament. (winning over 95-100 tonners) That profile size plays a huge role in the performance of a mech. Because the stalker had such a high Damage/areaexposed ratio.

The already underplayed medium class does not need the handicap being as big of a target as a mech that can carry 30 tons more armaments than it.

Our schools are really doing a terrible job. I think the European schools are much much better as you can see in this post.

Tonnage is a measure of weight, not height or width, SO HENCE A 6 FOOT STICK DOES NOT WEIGHT THE SAME AS A SIX FOOT LOG.

Do you get it now?

[tenderloving]

ThunderHart, on 09 May 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

Our schools are really doing a terrible job. I think the European schools are much much better as you can see in this post.

Tonnage is a measure of weight, not height or width, SO HENCE A 6 FOOT STICK DOES NOT WEIGHT THE SAME AS A SIX FOOT LOG.

Do you get it now?

It's always amusing when someone comes very late to a discussion and thinks they are adding something profound with a smarmy post and an argument that has been rehashed at least 10 times already.

Our education system's failure apparently reaches to reading comprehension.

The argument is that the size scaling of the mechs in question does not match the expected scaling based on the other mechs. This presents a cognitive problem (why is this mech so big when it's supposed to be medium sized?) and a practical problem (game balance issues stemming from exposed surface area).

Before you make a post like this make sure you read the discussion that has taken place previously or you just end up looking really silly.

Edited by tenderloving, 09 May 2013 - 07:46 AM.

[tenderloving]

FrostCollar, on 08 May 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

WW2 armor compared to Battlemechs? Apples and oranges.

And the irony is he was completely wrong. So even if the comparison applied (which it doesn't) it actually supports the claim that the sizes are off.

[ThunderHart]

tenderloving, on 09 May 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

It's always amusing when someone comes very late to a discussion and thinks they are adding something profound with a smarmy post and an argument that has been rehashed at least 10 times already.

Our education system's failure apparently reaches to reading comprehension.

The argument is that the size scaling of the mechs in question does not match the expected scaling based on the other mechs. This presents a cognitive problem (why is this mech so big when it's supposed to be medium sized?) and a practical problem (game balance issues stemming from exposed surface area).

Before you make a post like this make sure you read the discussion that has taken place previously or you just end up looking really silly.

Tonnage is a measure of weight, not height or width, SO HENCE A 6 FOOT STICK DOES NOT WEIGHT THE SAME AS A SIX FOOT LOG.

You must be slow let me repeat myself. Do . you . get . it . now?

Edited by ThunderHart, 09 May 2013 - 09:47 AM.

[Keifomofutu]

ThunderHart, on 09 May 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Tonnage is a measure of weight, not height or width, SO HENCE A 6 FOOT STICK DOES NOT WEIGHT THE SAME AS A SIX FOOT LOG.

You must be slow let me repeat myself. Do . you . get . it . now? <_<

A better example of the current situation is a six foot 2x4 vs a six foot 4x4.

Which is easier to shoot from the front? Oh right the answer is both. Only one will get hit and split from the impact and one will resist the hit.

Nobody really cares what the volume is. The important matter is "how is this mech's profile affecting game balance?"

For all these mechs mentioned their frontal profile is impacting them in a very negative way with the exception of stalker who's profile is making him overly hard to hit in a particular section.

End result? Stalkers take too long to die and Awesomes die too fast.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 09 May 2013 - 09:53 AM.

[SMDMadCow]

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.

Is that why we have near every mech available as a miniaturized cockpit item?

[tenderloving]

ThunderHart, on 09 May 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Tonnage is a measure of weight, not height or width, SO HENCE A 6 FOOT STICK DOES NOT WEIGHT THE SAME AS A SIX FOOT LOG.

You must be slow let me repeat myself. Do . you . get . it . now?

Can you even read?? Where in my post did I say your stick/log observation was incorrect? How are you capable of typing and submitting when you can't even comprehend what you are arguing against?

Who are you arguing with? It's not me because I never said you were wrong about the stick/log thing. It's a good analogy; give yourself a hand. What I said was that it's a completely uneccessary argument because we've already been over it multiple times and it doesn't address the real issue at hand. If you would actually read the discussion before responding you would know this.

So no, I am not slow. Your first post and now this one demonstrates that if anyone here lacks cognitive abilities, it's you. You need to spend less time holding down the caps lock, picking emotes, and patting yourself on the back, and more time comprehending the things you are reading.

SMDMadCow, on 09 May 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

Is that why we have near every mech available as a miniaturized cockpit item?

LOL I thought the same thing. Regardless it's a terrible excuse. If they have things set up so that they can't adjust the scale of in-game models, then they have done something with their development kit to make things harder.

[Tennex]

ThunderHart, on 09 May 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Tonnage is a measure of weight, not height or width, SO HENCE A 6 FOOT STICK DOES NOT WEIGHT THE SAME AS A SIX FOOT LOG.

You must be slow let me repeat myself. Do . you . get . it . now?

you can compare marshmallows and black holes if you wanted to.

but the fact of the matter is. things intended for the same function tend to have the same density. Because they are made using the same concepts, and structures.

i don't think people expect the awesome to be made of futuristic carbon fiber. and the trebuchet to be made of marshmallows.

Edited by Tennex, 09 May 2013 - 05:56 PM.