81 replies to this topic

[AntiCitizenJuan]

RG Notch, on 18 June 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

They've said (I don't remember where and I'm too lazy and the search function here sucks too much for me to look) they aren't going to resize mechs as it would be too much work. Now I know they said we wouldn't have 3rd person or coolant, but they tend to stick to the things that we don't want while changing course on what we don't. I guess they can't make more money from re sizing but coolant sells and 3rd person will bring in the hordes of people that can't handle torso twisting. I guess IGP doesn't think balance will sell.

I remember that as well. It just irks me that mechs like the Treb, Quickdraw, and Awesome feel blatantly inferior to similar tonnage mechs because of their size and hitboxes.

The AWS especially. I ran a STK3F to show that it took zero skill to be good at.

Here was my Basic 8/8 3F, with this build.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...8e45c69b0c35de8

I know I'm far from a great player, and my stats will show it. But the Stalker is a braindead, Easymode mech. It was more heat efficient than my 9M with a similar build, had more armor, more firepower, had better weapon clearance and when speed tweaked would go about the same speed as my 8T and 8Rs.

It's laughable how much better it would be Elited. I sold it, because there was literally no challenge at all.

http://imgur.com/1XXOF4U

This thing, for example, should not be as small as it is.

Edited by AntiCitizenJuan, 18 June 2013 - 02:33 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I like how you drew that...circle...to highlight. Appropriate.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 18 June 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

I like how you drew that...circle...to highlight. Appropriate.

What else is the Stalker but a giant, overpowered {Richard Cameron}?

[Akulakhan]

AntiCitizenJuan, on 18 June 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

I remember that as well. It just irks me that mechs like the Treb, Quickdraw, and Awesome feel blatantly inferior to similar tonnage mechs because of their size and hitboxes.

The AWS especially. I ran a STK3F to show that it took zero skill to be good at.

Here was my Basic 8/8 3F, with this build.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...8e45c69b0c35de8

I know I'm far from a great player, and my stats will show it. But the Stalker is a braindead, Easymode mech. It was more heat efficient than my 9M with a similar build, had more armor, more firepower, had better weapon clearance and when speed tweaked would go about the same speed as my 8T and 8Rs.

It's laughable how much better it would be Elited. I sold it, because there was literally no challenge at all.

http://imgur.com/1XXOF4U

This thing, for example, should not be as small as it is.

Hahahahah. It's true though. The Stalker has all the right hitboxes to maximize it's durability, can boat auto-aim PPCs, and the fact it essentially has no arms makes it just a point-and-click death machine.

Watch out, though. Some Stalker pilots just think they're naturally good at this game.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

But hold on guys, Syllogy insinuated there is no problem with the mech sizes, hitboxes and models! And he made that thread to suck up to the devs. So we should probably take his word for it.

Right...?

Right?

[General Taskeen]

Just an FYI, that image I was quoted with was someone else's work found in one of the many re-size/scaling threads. I have no idea who posted it originally, since I had to pull it from google. There have been many other such re-scale concepts that are similar as well.

[OneEyed Jack]

DaZur, on 18 June 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

FWIW... Using the cockpit eye-point is not a perfect point of reference to judge scale. The eye-point is not always the same reference point as the external model scale...

This.

It's amazing how many people can manage to throw around math terms to justify their arguments, but can't manage to simply look at side-by-side comparisons in-game, which would show that many of the size complaints are so much BS.

FFS, people, look at mechs standing next to each other, not from the POV of one of them.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

OneEyed Jack, on 18 June 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

This.

It's amazing how many people can manage to throw around math terms to justify their arguments, but can't manage to simply look at side-by-side comparisons in-game, which would show that many of the size complaints are so much BS.

FFS, people, look at mechs standing next to each other, not from the POV of one of them.

You can tell by the screenshot it's taller than the CPLT and CTF, regardless of whether it had a cockpit or not.

Whats so hard to understand?

[Tennex]

anyway vote here 500 votes now. let them know how you feel

http://mwomercs.com/...et-and-stalker/

Edited by Tennex, 18 June 2013 - 03:23 PM.

[Tie Ma]

we should all message dennis de koning to let him know how we feel

hes a pretty cool guy

Edited by Tie Ma, 18 June 2013 - 03:22 PM.

[Tennex]

Proposed size changes make assaults too big imo.

[armyof1]

I'm surprised no one's yet to bother putting up a picture to show how the Quickdraw size up to other mechs. The last patch broke the game and corrupted a ton of files so haven't bothered to fix it yet.

[Tennex]

if adridos decides to post them it'll probably be on this thread. But my money is on it being only a hair shorter than the highalnder

http://mwomercs.com/...hs/page__st__20

[OneEyed Jack]

AntiCitizenJuan, on 18 June 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

You can tell by the screenshot it's taller than the CPLT and CTF, regardless of whether it had a cockpit or not.

Whats so hard to understand?

For you, apparently English.

You can tell from the SS that the POV is higher than a couple chicken-walkers in a humanoid mech, which means approximately nothing*. But the point was that **** from inside the cockpit only shows you where the POV is set, not the size of the actual mech.

I won't even get into explaining the basic idea that size is not purely defined by height, as there are 3 dimensions to define size.

(* Since your comprehension level seems to be low, I'll explain that chicken-walkers are generally shorter by design... since they don't have straight humanoid legs)

[Tennex]

OneEyed Jack, on 18 June 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

For you, apparently English.

You can tell from the SS that the POV is higher than a couple chicken-walkers in a humanoid mech, which means approximately nothing*. But the point was that **** from inside the cockpit only shows you where the POV is set, not the size of the actual mech.

I won't even get into explaining the basic idea that size is not purely defined by height, as there are 3 dimensions to define size.

(* Since your comprehension level seems to be low, I'll explain that chicken-walkers are generally shorter by design... since they don't have straight humanoid legs)

its also taller than the jagermech.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

OneEyed Jack, on 18 June 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

For you, apparently English.

You can tell from the SS that the POV is higher than a couple chicken-walkers in a humanoid mech, which means approximately nothing*. But the point was that **** from inside the cockpit only shows you where the POV is set, not the size of the actual mech.

I won't even get into explaining the basic idea that size is not purely defined by height, as there are 3 dimensions to define size.

(* Since your comprehension level seems to be low, I'll explain that chicken-walkers are generally shorter by design... since they don't have straight humanoid legs)

You wont explain the idea because youre wrong. The cockpit is up higher and because of this the mech is taller. You're talking about if the chicken walkers legs were completely straigh, which they arent, so it's a moot ******* point. The POV is up higher because the mech is taller. It's almost as wide as an Awesome because I've played along side and against QKD's and I pilot an AWS most of the time. Stop being an *******.

Get off your high horse.

Edited by AntiCitizenJuan, 18 June 2013 - 04:47 PM.

[Tennex]

The picutres were taken with the torso centered.

so we know at least that the quickdraw's cockpit is taller than the catapult, cataphract, and jagermech (since its as tall as the cataphract)

though if you look at it in game. the quickdraw is about as tall as the highlander.

Edited by Tennex, 18 June 2013 - 04:26 PM.

[BlackIronTarkus]

Wow, its unbelievable that quantity of stuff they messed up... every threads or two I facepalm and lose the small hope I had in the game.

[aniviron]

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.

[LordBraxton]

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.

I would click like, but a 'love' button would be more appropriate