378 replies to this topic

[Chaon]

Just looking at various tech sheets and the mechs in MWO are seriously in need of a resize.

Some of the light mechs (Commando, Spider) are just way too small. They look like they are outsized powerarmor being worn by the pilots instead of battlemechs with a pilot inside the head.

[Tennex]

http://mwomercs.com/...22#entry2661422

a small victory

[HammerSwarm]

Tennex, on 17 August 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...22#entry2661422

a small victory

Keep up Tennex, you're an educated voice on this topic with good ideas.

As to what PGI said at the other end of your link, I think we all understand what a big job this is. It's not like highlighting something in MS paint and clicking "Shrink 15%". We just view this as a more important step then adding 6 new mechs by December 15th. It's at least worthy of a time frame, i.e. Soon, after Operation Saber, right after new years, approaching never.

Edited by HammerSwarm, 04 September 2013 - 06:02 AM.

[Foxfire]

and Raven and Kintaro.

Raven is too large with legs that are too easy to target, Kintaro is too large...

[CtrlAltWheee]

Thank you for posting the poll in the thread. Great job collecting the images too. Appreciated.

[Itzi]

Initially I agree the tonnage of the mech should reflect similarly to the volume.

then I dug a little deeper: example here is ship design below:
some issues that needs to be taken account of is:
- building technology used(structure, metallurgy, )
- purpose of build(for example a LRM boat would need to make space for all those ammo)

so from here my conclusion would be, as long as the balance is not hurt, the size can be a tool to help balance the mech designs, as long as it is not over the top

[RandomLurker]

Here's some more diagrams about scale and mass.

Well, volume, for the nitpickers. Unless mechs are made of styrofoam though, we may as well assume that volume correlates strongly to mass.

[Tsangdhori]

Can we add the Dragon, Kintaro, and Raven to this list?

[Strum Wealh]

RandomLurker, on 26 September 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

Here's some more diagrams about scale and mass.

Well, volume, for the nitpickers. Unless mechs are made of styrofoam though, we may as well assume that volume correlates strongly to mass.

More specifically, the Square-Cube Law indicates that "when an object undergoes a proportional increase in size, its new volume is proportional to the cube of the multiplier and its new surface area is proportional to the square of the multiplier".

That is, the Square-Cube Law describes the three-way relationship between size (e.g. length * width * height), surface area (the total area of the outside part or uppermost layer of a three-dimensional object), and volume (the amount of space that a substance or object occupies, or that is enclosed within said object's surface), and changes thereto.

Using the Square-Cube Law to, say, compare the Commando (25-ton 'Mech) to the Centurion/Hunchback/Trebuchet (50-ton 'Mechs) to the Atlas (100-ton 'Mech) is deceiving - and deceptive - because:

• the 'Mechs are not composed of homogeneous materials (e.g. armor is a multi-material composite, myomers are composed of a plastic-like polymer, the internal structure is mainly steel-based, the reactor is composed of (among other things) tungsten carbide, and so on), such that density is not uniform across a given 'Mech's form
  
• the 'Mechs are not of identical geometry (e.g. a Commando is not actually the same shape as a Centurion, a Centurion is not actually the same shape as a Hunchback or Trebuchet, and none of those are the actually same shape as an Atlas, despite being more similar to each other than to, say, a Cataphract); the Square-Cube Law is intended to deal with scaled duplicates of the same object

In other words, a MWO Commando (~9.7 meters tall) scaled up to be the same height as a MWO Atlas (~17.6 meters tall) does not necessarily weigh four times its original weight.
In fact, the approximate doubling in size would imply an approximately eightfold increase in volume under the Square-Cube Law... which, under the assumption indicated in the quoted post, would make the scaled-up Commando weigh approximately 200 tons.

Working backwards, the assumption indicated in the quoted post would imply that a Commando would need to be on the order of 11.00 meters tall (slightly taller than the current height of the Raven (10.9 meters) - a difference of 1.3 meters, or just over four-and-a-quarter feet ) and exactly the same shape as the Atlas in order to work as believed (that is, to have a 4x increase in volume correspond to a 4x increase in mass), while a Centurion would have to be on the order of 13.96 meters tall (slightly shorter than its current height of 14.7 meters - a difference of 0.73 meters, or just under two-and-a-half feet ) in order to work as believed (that is, to have a 2x increase in volume correspond to a 2x increase in mass).

So, when the differences are on the order of a 10-year-old child's height or (substantially) less, is it really worth it?

[RandomLurker]

Strum Wealh, on 27 September 2013 - 04:43 AM, said:

*snip*

So, when the differences are on the order of a 10-year-old child's height or (substantially) less, is it really worth it?

All granted, and I admitted as much.

However, we don't have information about the densities or interior design of mechs, and I'm no good at calculus, so a rough visual estimate of comparative volume should be enough. I don't expect or ask for perfection, noone will notice if it's mathematically accurate to life. The real problem is illustrated by the second diagram, which shows just how far off the scaling currently is. We're not talking about a difference of a few meters height, but of hundreds of tons. For the current scaling to be remotely accurate, a Spider would have to be solid metal and an Atlas would have to be made of styrofoam. Even if the Atlas were 100% hollow, it would not be enough to account for a 3x or 5x difference in scale. By even the most generous standards of estimation, that's an insane amount.

Basically, some mechs are too big (quickdraw, etc) and light mechs are way too small. This does affect game balance because of hitbox size. None of which is a new idea. I just did some simplified diagrams to explain why, and by how much the sizing is off. I don't think anyone (devs included) cares to do calculus and structure engineering to figure out the exact scale ratio for each mech, but simple visual diagrams can go a long way towards getting it to 'feel right'.

[Marj]

+1 for game balance being the ONLY factor governing mech geometry. TT wasn't designed to work in an FPS environment, but this is where the mech designs come from. If you want to keep the TT mech designs they need to be either re-sized or otherwise changed so they don't become too easy/hard to hit in MWO with the area of the front profile being the main concern. The Awesome looks cool, but I'd never play one over a Stalker.

[ArmageddonKnight]

And while i agree the scale needs changing. it means diddly squat when those tiny light mechs can pack multiple medium weapons and/or large weapons punching way above their weight class. Also, if said weapons were the same physical size across all mechs and shown on the mech in such a manner, would look so silly on ligths mechs and should not physicaly fit.

So yea tweek the physical scale and size of the mechs, just make sure to add hardpoint restrictions to them aswell otherwise ur work will be for nothing when the same weapon looks different and is of a different size on each mech.

[AC]

And the Spider. It is the size of a commando, but weighs way more. Might as well do it as you need to fix the hitboxes on it anyway

[Gray 46rus]

From 2000+ meters, I mix up Quickdraw with Victor. They have similar silhouette and same height. Twenty tons difference means nothing.

Edited by Gray 46rus, 09 October 2013 - 02:23 AM.

[Dugra Dugrasson]

Brilig, on 23 April 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

I would like to add the awesome to that list. It is broad side of a barn wide, and that hurts its survivability a lot.

80 ton 'Mech, as wide as an Atlas. Sounds legit.

[Accursed Richards]

Marj, on 30 September 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

+1 for game balance being the ONLY factor governing mech geometry. TT wasn't designed to work in an FPS environment, but this is where the mech designs come from. If you want to keep the TT mech designs they need to be either re-sized or otherwise changed so they don't become too easy/hard to hit in MWO with the area of the front profile being the main concern. The Awesome looks cool, but I'd never play one over a Stalker.

Liked so hard it broke the internet.

Does the model size give a mech an unfair advanatage / disadvantage? I'm sure your knowledge of physics or BT lore is very impressive, but that is the ONLY question that matters for gameplay purposes.

Edited by Accursed Richards, 11 October 2013 - 06:40 AM.

[Bagheera]

Several mechs need to be re-scaled for purposes of Game Play Balance. In light of game balance, everything else is moot. Why are people still arguing against this change?

Ludicrous.

In the thread discussing options for getting players to use more medium mechs, the most common (by an overwhelming margin) response was to scale them properly - which meant going smaller.

It's not rocket science, it's game balance. Stop trying to use rocket science.

Edited by Bagheera, 11 October 2013 - 09:31 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Bagheera, on 11 October 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

Several mechs need to be re-scaled for purposes of Game Play Balance. In light of game balance, everything else is moot. Why are people still arguing against this change?

Ludicrous.

In the thread discussing options for getting players to use more medium mechs, the most common (by an overwhelming margin) response was to scale them properly - which meant going smaller.

It's not rocket science, it's game balance. Stop trying to use rocket science.

Indeed - though, the argument is over which 'Mechs actually need to be re-scaled.

Here is the famous chart, courtesy of "Adridos" and "Bishop Steiner" circa January 2013:


By comparison, here is a table I made based on the information presented in some of my previous posts:

This table assumes a constant overall density, such that a decrease in volume produces a proportional decrease in mass.
This table also assumes that the Square-Cube Law is applied (such that a linear change in size/scale produces a cubic change in volume).
This table uses the MWO rendition of the Atlas (height determined to be 17.6 meters, as demonstrated on the Adridos/Bishop chart) as the reference point.
Note that this table is most applicable to upright (e.g. the torso is, or is nearly, "taller" than it is "wide" or "deep"/"long") humanoids (such as the Commando, Centurion, and Atlas); it makes no attempt to be applicable to "hunched-over" 'Mechs whose torso is significantly "wider" or "deeper/longer" than it is "tall" (such as the Raven, Dragon, Catapult, or Stalker). Nor does it attempt to address the differences in build between upright humanoid 'Mechs (e.g. the Centurion and Trebuchet being "skinnier"/"lankier" than the Hunchback, or the Atlas).

What the table does do, however, is show how tall an Atlas would be if a rescaled to the mass of any other given BattleMech, assuming overall density (that is, total mass divided by total volume) is held constant and the Square-Cube Law is applied (as a number of proponents of 'Mech rescaling have suggested).

Now, for a comparison between the Adridos/Bishop chart and my previous table:

Of note is how each of the upright 'Mechs except the Commando is within one meter (or, alternatively, within a single-digit percentage) of the height suggested by "scaling to the Atlas".

This data supports three statements:

• With regard to the upright humanoids presented in the Adridos/Bishop chart, the Medium 'Mechs (and the Heavies, and the Assaults) are more-or-less "the right size", or close enough that the differences are negligable.
  
• With regard to the upright humanoids, the Light 'Mechs (certainly the Commando, and probably the Spider as well) are "too small".
  
• One method of "improving gameplay balance" is to bring the Light 'Mechs in-line with the other weight classes with regard to scaling, and having all subsequent 'Mechs adhere to the same scaling.

The Commando & the Spider (and likely the Locust, Jenner, and Raven as well) are in far greater need of a re-scaling (specifically, one that results in an up-sizing) than the Centurion & the similarly-sized Trebuchet.

[Hardes13]

I think the atlas is fine and i play one myself.
Perhaps it should be able to lean down a little bit more to crush jenners hopping on his feet, but he is the bigges and badest on the battlefield, and thats good.
I don´t think all mechs should be equaly good in hitboxes, size or weapon positioning.
But i also agree that several mediums and the cat are too big targets. ( with the cat it´s mostly the ears.
And the stalker is too small.
I had several times when could not take apart an enemy stalker and a cat with ACs in the arms.
I don´t think the stalker should be higher, but broader that the cat would be nice.

[GoManGo]

First I would say all lights should be Jenner size or smaller. All mediums should be Hunchback size or close. All Heavies should be cataphract size or close. And all assaults should be varied sizes from the smallest being slightly larger that a cataphract up to a atlas.