83 replies to this topic

[Tennex]

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.

Edited by Tennex, 23 April 2013 - 11:49 AM.

[Congzilla]

The mech sizes are all messed up.

[Ph30nix]

personally i think alot of their mech scales are completely borked, but then again you would need a certain size mech to hold the differnt engines, so the max engine it could hold would limit its size to x ammounts (i know thats a bit too nitty gritty but its a thought)

aside from that i think most of the awesome tonnage comes fro its bulk and that its alot thicker. Ya know the classic big boned kid lol. I always see a Treb and to lesser extent a hunchie as being umm hollow? while the Awesome is basicly solid. loaded with armor.

im not making much sense i know work days almost over ready to go home, but basicly i could picture (assuming frame could support it) you actually have the room in a treb for a TON more armor then it usualy uses.

i wouldnt be suprised to see a mech rescaling eventually, (i mean a commando is half the size of mechs 3x its weight?) but more then likely PGI programmed themselves into a corner with good old cryeng 3 and it wouldnt accept a simple reskin and dimesion change.

Edited by Ph30nix, 23 April 2013 - 10:23 AM.

[Tennex]

this used to be just an aesthetic and logic issue.

but now its also a balance issue.


Tanks are built to be squat because over years of iteration, the designers realized a smaller profile size (height) means better performance.

Edited by Tennex, 23 April 2013 - 10:24 AM.

[Alex Wolfe]

Stop being entitled to reasonably sized, playable mediums.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 24 April 2013 - 06:07 AM.

[Varnas]

And cicada is only 5 tons heavier than a jenner but almost twice the size.


YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT

[Tennex]

Alex Wolfe, on 23 April 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

Stop being entitled to reasonably sized, playable mediums.

lol did you just happen to have that image handy. because its glorious

Edited by Tennex, 23 April 2013 - 10:25 AM.

[armitage]

The mediums are filled with the hopes and dreams of being useful again ,which occupies space but has no weight

[Vassago Rain]

armitage, on 23 April 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

The mediums are filled with the hopes and dreams of being useful again ,which occupies space but has no weight

This.

[deforce]

because they didnt lift enough weights. muscle>fat.

[Bishop Steiner]

million dollar question, ain't it?

[Tennex]

armitage, on 23 April 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

The mediums are filled with the hopes and dreams of being useful again ,which occupies space but has no weight

*slow clap*

[MadSavage]

I wouldn't say the mediums are too big, the Awesome is simply too small. It's very fat, so I guess whoever did the artwork for the mech thought that made up for its lack of height.

[Ryokens leap]

The Stalker also seems to have shrunk in the wash.

[Wrenchfarm]

Indeed. I would love it if my Cents and Awesomes shrank 10-15% down in size, for goodness sake, the Cent is supposed to be an agile middle-weight fighter, not a stocky huge target.

I remember hearing there was some reason they couldn't easily adjust the size (ruin on the textures or something?) but then they started shrinking mechs down to Hula girl size so I'm wondering if this is still the case.

MadSavage, on 23 April 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

I wouldn't say the mediums are too big, the Awesome is simply too small. It's very fat, so I guess whoever did the artwork for the mech thought that made up for its lack of height.

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.

[Bagheera]

Tennex, on 23 April 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

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.

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.

I have been asking that about the Centurion since it was released. Somewhere back in the day, there as a semi-official response that they were happy with the relative sizes of the mechs at that time.

I agree, Centurion and Trebbie are too large for their weight, but not hopeful of any change.

armitage, on 23 April 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

The mediums are filled with the hopes and dreams of being useful again ,which occupies space but has no weight

Epic.

Edited by Bagheera, 23 April 2013 - 10:52 AM.

[Jonathan Paine]

For this particular comparison, height does not equal volume,. Think three dimensions. The awesome might actually be too big.

[Suprentus]

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.

Edited by Suprentus, 23 April 2013 - 11:04 AM.

[Sky Ferrix]

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.


Edit: Suprentus makes a good point. Some mechs are still a little off though.

Edited by Foxx, 23 April 2013 - 11:03 AM.

[Suprentus]

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.

Really?