183 replies to this topic

[Alex Wolfe]

Adridos, on 19 June 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

It's currently the 3rd highest mech now, actually.

And here we are again

it's always such a pleasure

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 19 June 2013 - 06:48 PM.

[Arkmaus]

Tennex, on 19 June 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

Here it is by weight

The Stalker is so ridiculous I don't even know what else to say....

[Tennex]

Alex Wolfe, on 19 June 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

And here we are again

it's always such a pleasure

i'm gonna have to save that for later

Edited by Tennex, 19 June 2013 - 07:20 PM.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Arkmaus, on 19 June 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

The Stalker is so ridiculous I don't even know what else to say....

And it's an Easymode mech to boot.

[Keifomofutu]

Anyone trying to defend yet another mech DOA right out of the gate because of hitbox size and design with NO thought toward balance I just have this to say.

Go home you're drunk. People talk about frontal profile because mechs shoot each other front to front. If you are getting hit in the side it means you are poorly positioned anyway. The balance comes from frontal profile.

If you disagree then Stalker stalker StAlker STAlker. Crappy torso twist angles and yet still blows awesome out of the water and mostly because of hitbox design.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 19 June 2013 - 08:54 PM.

[Tennex]

oldradagast, on 19 June 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

I think they really don't pay any attention at all when scaling Mechs.

Yes, one can argue that height != weight, and that's true, but this mech is larger in all dimensions than it should be, unless it is absurdly thin front-to-back... which really doesn't matter since that's not the angle at which 90% of the attacks are delivered from.

although its an estimate i think this will put a lot of weight/volume arguments to rest.

[Tennex]

Ghogiel, on 19 June 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

I have accurately checked surface area and volume of several mech models. Most comparisons are probably within 10%. For example, the Hunch model compared to the Cent is only about 15% smaller in volume.

Also anyone who is producing volumes of the models without using a solid enclosed mesh is doing it wrong and their numbers can only be used to confuse people.

lets see those numbers please to put this to rest.

[Tie Ma]

EyeOne, on 19 June 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

Probably should stay away from: looks like it has less volume = it has less volume. Without careful calculation it's all meaningless. Shapes and spaces can look deceiving without calculations.

if you actually read my post. that is exactly my point.

Edited by Tie Ma, 19 June 2013 - 09:49 PM.

[aniviron]

Keifomofutu, on 19 June 2013 - 08:52 PM, said:

Anyone trying to defend yet another mech DOA right out of the gate because of hitbox size and design with NO thought toward balance I just have this to say.

Go home you're drunk. People talk about frontal profile because mechs shoot each other front to front. If you are getting hit in the side it means you are poorly positioned anyway. The balance comes from frontal profile.

If you disagree then Stalker stalker StAlker STAlker. Crappy torso twist angles and yet still blows awesome out of the water and mostly because of hitbox design.

I agree with you so much I am going to quote myself saying the same thing but with more arguments.

aniviron, on 18 June 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

To those saying hiboxes don't matter: why is the Awesome considered to be one of the worst mechs in the game, and the Stalker one of the best? They are assault mechs, only five tons in weight different, with similar engine ratings (AWS-9M excluded). Both can only carry missiles and energy weapons. So what's different between the two mechs? Only two things.

The first is torso and arm twist angles. The Awesome has the Stalker beat hands-down there, no contest. The Awesome gets better angles horizontally, and can aim its arms laterally as well as vertically; it clearly beats the Stalker here.

The other difference is model size and consequently hit box locations. The Stalker has a compact torso assmebly with large side torsi that are mostly covered by the arms, and a tiny little ct hitbox; the profile is at its smallest when the mech is facing directly at you, meaning it is hardest to hit when it is able to aim at you. Conversely, the Awesome is wider than any mech in the game; it has the biggest center torso of every mech in the game bar none. It also has huge side torsi, a fact which is mitigated only by the gigantic size of the CT, which means the CT always gets cored out first. Part of the arms also count as a hit on the torso, and torso twisting to block with the arms still leaves the ct sticking out the front. To fire on an enemy, the Awesome has to expose its widest and most vulnerable profile.

In short: on paper, the Awesome actually looks better than the Stalker. Similar hardpoints and types, similar speeds, almost the same max armor amount, and significantly better torso twist angles and speeds. In reality, the hitboxes have absolutely ruined the mech, and it all comes down to the mech's terrible scaling. I don't want to hear anyone else complaining about how the art doesn't matter- it is the difference between a mech being a success and a flop.

Karl Streiger, on 19 June 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

Hm I'don't think that height is the problem... maybe some one should calculate the volume of a mech.
if the CTF - have fewer volume afterwards than you can "complain" - but I don't think so because the CTF is much broader - the QKD is taller... so no problem right?

I wish people would stop spewing nonsense about volumes in mech. I'm going to show you how stupid the foundations for this game are.

According to PGI, the atlas is 18m tall.

Estimating conservatively, we can assume the atlas is about four meters wide, but probably closer to five or six. For a reasonable approximation of volume, I use pi*r^2*h, so 3.14*2^2*18. This gives us an approximate volume of 226m^3.

An atlas weighs 100 tons. That's 90718kg.

Dividing 90718kg/226m^3 gives us the density of an atlas, ~401kg/m^3.

Water has a density of 1000kg/m^3.

An atlas would float.

[Sug]

General Taskeen, on 18 June 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Hehe. MWO needs a major re-scale pass.

I didn't make this image, but whoever did, it is the best re-scale concept to date:



Along with:

* Reduce Dragon hump
* Reduce width of Awesome/adjust hitbox, while making it taller as above in the image

^Basically each weight class is normalized in size by their tonnage. So a quickdraw would stand the same or similar height to the Dragon, while the JagerMech and Catapult are only slightly taller.

Whoa whoa slow down man you're making too much sense.

[Piddles]

I'll be honest, I don't care about volume vs. weight or hitboxes or whatever, i'm not a math major, I'm just someone who enjoy's playing MWO and understands common sense.

The Quickdraw being the size it is in game is ridiculous. They took a heavy 'mech that was designed to rely upon speed and maneuverability instead of armor and firepower (as stated in Tech Readout 3025) and made it the same size as an assault. That doesn't pass the common sense test, they just removed the things the quickdraw relies upon to survive by making it a huge, easily hit target. No designer would've approved the design we see in-game for combat vs the other 'mechs out there already.

Please fix this soon. You shrunk the Atlas by lowering it's head because you thought it was a more practical combat-worthy adjustment, now you need to be willing to adjust all the other 'mechs to make them a more realistic combat platform too.

[Karl Streiger]

aniviron, on 19 June 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

Dividing 90718kg/226m^3 gives us the density of an atlas, ~401kg/m^3.

Water has a density of 1000kg/m^3.

An atlas would float.

you come with physics? really? Do you know how the inside of a battlemech really looks like?

However it was just an example why some mechs although they weight more - are lower in size.
But I highly have to agree that the armor points at each location should be factored by its size.

Although found that pic in ATD41 by CutterWolf....


You simple see, that the QKD has a broader torso too.

So only reason is: and its really black humor - is that PGI just take the not available "scale" from the TT miniatures (my 100t Atlas is smaller as my 35t Hollander - not to mention the Warlord - a great 80t mech in theory but a block of expensive tin as miniature

Edited by Karl Streiger, 20 June 2013 - 01:12 AM.

[Tie Ma]

Karl Streiger, on 19 June 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:

you come with physics? really? Do you know how the inside of a battlemech really looks like?

However it was just an example why some mechs although they weight more - are lower in size.
But I highly have to agree that the armor points at each location should be factored by its size.

Although found that pic in ATD41 by CutterWolf....


You simple see, that the QKD has a broader torso too.

So only reason is: and its really black humor - is that PGI just take the not available "scale" from the TT miniatures (my 100t Atlas is smaller as my 35t Hollander - not to mention the Warlord - a great 80t mech in theory but a block of expensive tin as miniature

quickdraw is just straight up bigger. theres no logic behind it

[N a p e s]

After reading the beginning of this thread and than spawning into a game with a Dragon and a Quickdraw right in front of me (I was in a highlander) I was kinda calling ********. At that point it certainly didn't look much taller than the Dragon but it must of been the perspective or something because after playing the 5K the thing feels waaaaaay too tall.

[oldradagast]

Nice to see the math backing up the absurdity of the random scaling of mechs in this game. No wonder undersized, over-gunned Stalkers dominate, Awesomes are used as target practice, and we all can marvel at how 50 and 60 ton mechs are somehow as large as 90+ ton mechs. It's nuts - just watch in game at the huge Quickdraws, and you'll feel like your up against some horned assault mech - oh, wait, it weighs 25 tons less than the Stalker, which is smaller than it in any dimension that matters.

[Orzorn]

I don't even particularly care about mass vs volume and all that phooey. Its purely a gameplay issue at this point. Mechs with a giant body but the armor of a 60 ton mech, mechs with a small body and the armor of a 65 or 85 ton mech. Its just crazy and REALLY limits the available mech options. If the Quickdraw was about the size of the Dragon (instead of an entire head taller) it would probably be a competitive mech. At this point, its a fun mech, but I wouldn't call it competitive. Its head counting as a CT just makes it far too easy to hit at the height that it currently stands at.

I've been playing Dragons since they got added to the game in closed beta, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Dragons (when piloted properly) are more survivable than a Quickdraw. The Dragon has a big center torso, but proper torso twisting can help you, as well as the fact that you're actually quite a squat mech and can hide behind a lot of things. The Quickdraw is just massive, and its CT is very easy to strike, especially since you can shoot its head from almost any angle and it count as a CT hit.

[Fate 6]

Tennex, on 18 June 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

I think PGI has 2 scales when making mechs.

one scale for the centurion, trebuchet, quickdraw.
and another scale for the rest of the mechs.


because if you think about it. using the first, taller scale, the quickdraw being only 5 tons heavier than the cent, is about the right size. Though the centurion in the first place was never the right size.

They just hate mechs that could be fun. Every mech I actually want to play ends up having terrible hitboxes.

[Tie Ma]

Fate 6, on 20 June 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

They just hate mechs that could be fun. Every mech I actually want to play ends up having terrible hitboxes.

that would imply that there is some parttern/reasoning behind how they scale mechs. i wouldn't give them that much credit.

[Fate 6]

Tie Ma, on 20 June 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

that would imply that there is some parttern/reasoning behind how they scale mechs. i wouldn't give them that much credit.

QKD, CN9, TBK all giant, Dragon has huge CT, Awesome is just a barn door. Fast mechs with missiles is the trend here. Apparently that translates to giant models and terrible hitboxes.

Really the trend is more just fast mechs, so I happen to notice it a lot because I like faster mechs that have to make great use of the limited firepower they get. This happens to also trend with missiles, because missiles go with fast brawlers.

Edited by Fate 6, 20 June 2013 - 09:47 AM.

[aniviron]

Karl Streiger, on 19 June 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:

you come with physics? really? Do you know how the inside of a battlemech really looks like?

However it was just an example why some mechs although they weight more - are lower in size.
But I highly have to agree that the armor points at each location should be factored by its size.

I don't, but I do know exactly how tall and heavy they are, and that is all that matters.

I'm not arguing for floating atlases or anything like that. My point was more that there has never been any solid logic behind how big and how heavy any of these mechs are; and in that case, the only thing that should determine how big a mech's model is would be the impact that it has on gameplay.