81 replies to this topic

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Credit to thatrobotguy for taking time out of his day to share this with us.

thatrobotguy, on 18 June 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

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:

I totally want to use a lightly armored, 60 ton mech that is as tall as a Highlander.

I think the Dragon might actually be better now lol

Edited by AntiCitizenJuan, 18 June 2013 - 11:05 AM.

[Homeless Bill]

Don't really care, but it looks better than what we've got. Bill approves. Though I really wish they'd designed the Awesome differently...

[Onmyoudo]

This happens basically with every mech, and it sucks. Mediums are supposed to be, well, medium. I still think the Trebuchet had it worse than this, but it should be significantly shorter.

It's still fun to play though.

[Zyllos]

AntiCitizenJuan, on 18 June 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

Credit to thatrobotguy for taking time out of his day to share this with us.




I totally want to use a lightly armored, 60 ton mech that is as tall as a Highlander.

I think the Dragon might actually be better now lol

I think that if someone would take a picture of two mechs, from their cockpits, and use them as comparisons, we could get a better perspective.

What would you think the Cataphract pilot was looking at on the Quickdraw? The neck/upper torso area or the top of the head?

Edited by Zyllos, 18 June 2013 - 11:17 AM.

[NinetyProof]

Who the hell cares about tonnage vs height? That is irrelevant to game "balance" except in extreme situations ... like the properted "flea" is so small that an Atlas can't even see when the flee is face hugging the Atlas.

Tonnage has nothing to do with height, nor should it. You don't make any case / salient arguments why height of mechs should be adjusted.

Matter of fact, I would almost prefer there to be a bigger difference so when I am in my Fatlass I could shoot *over* more mechs ... but that is really more about where the Atlas hard points are located, which is part of game balance.

Oh wait ... didn't you realize that *size* of a mech and hard points locations of a mech are part of game balance as much as tonnage? *sigh* ... public schools really dropped the ball in teaching kids about "critical thinking".

[LordBraxton]

I figured the quickdraw would be oversized, but this is ridiculous, it is as tall as an awesome

NinetyProof, on 18 June 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Who the hell cares about tonnage vs height? That is irrelevant to game "balance" except in extreme situations ... like the properted "flea" is so small that an Atlas can't even see when the flee is face hugging the Atlas.

Tonnage has nothing to do with height, nor should it. You don't make any case / salient arguments why height of mechs should be adjusted.

Matter of fact, I would almost prefer there to be a bigger difference so when I am in my Fatlass I could shoot *over* more mechs ... but that is really more about where the Atlas hard points are located, which is part of game balance.

Oh wait ... didn't you realize that *size* of a mech and hard points locations of a mech are part of game balance as much as tonnage? *sigh* ... public schools really dropped the ball in teaching kids about "critical thinking".

no you are completely wrong

hitboxes are one of the most important balance issues in this game

and hitboxes are completely dependent upon size

that's not even critical thinking that's common knowledge

Edited by LordBraxton, 18 June 2013 - 11:19 AM.

[PanzerMagier]

100% totally agree. Should be top priority. Damnit if they can't even get the size of mechs right then what have we of ever receiving a well made game?

[General Taskeen]

Definitely would like to get a side-by-side shot if anyone can group up and take screenshots in a match. Either that or take scaling shots by extracting the models from the files.

But, as many agreed in previous polls, the scaling seems very inconsistent for each weight class OR major hit-box issues that definitely ARE affecting the competitive nature of SOME Mechs.

-Centurion/Treb waaaay taller than Hunchback
-Dragon Wide/Large CT Issue
-Stalker a tad short/not as tall (better at being "awesome" compared to an what an "awesome" originally did)
-Awesome Too Wide/Huge Hit boxes

Edited by General Taskeen, 18 June 2013 - 11:27 AM.

[hashinshin]

NinetyProof, on 18 June 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Who the hell cares about tonnage vs height? That is irrelevant to game "balance" except in extreme situations ... like the properted "flea" is so small that an Atlas can't even see when the flee is face hugging the Atlas.

Tonnage has nothing to do with height, nor should it. You don't make any case / salient arguments why height of mechs should be adjusted.

Matter of fact, I would almost prefer there to be a bigger difference so when I am in my Fatlass I could shoot *over* more mechs ... but that is really more about where the Atlas hard points are located, which is part of game balance.

Oh wait ... didn't you realize that *size* of a mech and hard points locations of a mech are part of game balance as much as tonnage? *sigh* ... public schools really dropped the ball in teaching kids about "critical thinking".

are you ********?

[Vodrin Thales]

I think the heavies should remain the size they are now and Assaults should be even larger than currently. Otherwise your scale is about ideal.

[xDeityx]

hashinshin, on 18 June 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

are you ********?

He is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. He (somehow) doesn't understand why size is important and therefore assumes it isn't important.

This is why it is so important to have some publicly available metric of skill displayed on the forums. It's much easier to convince people that their lack of skill is the problem when you have metrics that show the skill disparities of those in the conversation.

[SpiralRazor]

LordBraxton, on 18 June 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

I figured the quickdraw would be oversized, but this is ridiculous, it is as tall as an awesome



no you are completely wrong

hitboxes are one of the most important balance issues in this game

and hitboxes are completely dependent upon size

that's not even critical thinking that's common knowledge

Braxton is correct. Hit boxes make or break a competitive game. Its pretty obvious you didnt play previous Mechwarriors, or Living Legends at all.

[DaZur]

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...

Edited by DaZur, 18 June 2013 - 11:52 AM.

[NinetyProof]

LordBraxton, on 18 June 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

no you are completely wrong

Ahh ... no?

LordBraxton, on 18 June 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

hitboxes are one of the most important balance issues in this game

On noes ... the hit box is a bit larger on a lessor tonned mech ... oh wait ... that's my point exactly.

Tonnage doesn't matter at all ...

LordBraxton, on 18 June 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

and hitboxes are completely dependent upon size

Yes / No ... the overall hit box is, but the individual hit boxes are more about design.

Again ... tonnage != hit box. tonnage = equipment + armor

chassis = hit box. You want a "small hit box" buy a mech that has a "small chassis".

Again ... tall and skinny vs short and fat vs short and skinny vs tall and fat ... vs arms that are far from torso vs arms that are close to torso vs legs that are spread apart vs legs that are close together ... etc, etc, etc.

Bottom line: Some chassis are harder to hit BY DESIGN ... some chassis are easier to hit BY DESIGN. It's not necessarily a tonnage thing, Correlation != Causation.

SpiralRazor, on 18 June 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

Braxton is correct. Hit boxes make or break a competitive game. Its pretty obvious you didnt play previous Mechwarriors, or Living Legends at all.

No he is not ...

Edited by NinetyProof, 18 June 2013 - 11:41 AM.

[LordBraxton]

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

Ahh ... no?

On noes ... the hit box is a bit larger on a lessor tonned mech ... oh wait ... that's my point exactly.

Tonnage doesn't matter at all ...


Yes / No ... the overall hit box is, but the individual hit boxes are more about design.

Again ... tonnage != hit box. tonnage = equipment + armor

chassis = hit box. You want a "small hit box" buy a mech that has a "small chassis".

Again ... tall and skinny vs short and fat vs short and skinny vs tall and fat ... vs arms that are far from torso vs arms that are close to torso vs legs that are spread apart vs legs that are close together ... etc, etc, etc.

Bottom line: Some chassis are harder to hit BY DESIGN ... some chassis are easier to hit BY DESIGN. It's not necessarily a tonnage thing, Correlation != Causation.

so you are agreeing that the profile of the chassis of a mech has a ton to do with how easy it is to hit?

therefore shouldn't a mech with less tonnage for weapons and armor have a smaller profile, for balance reasons alone?

throw fictional\technical reasons out for a moment

why should 60 tonners be easier to hit in the torso than 65\70 tonners?

(both the dragon and quickdraw have bit fat torsos)

Edited by LordBraxton, 18 June 2013 - 11:49 AM.

[NinetyProof]

LordBraxton, on 18 June 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

so you are agreeing that the profile of the chassis of a mech has a ton to do with how easy it is to hit?

Yes, by design

LordBraxton, on 18 June 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

therefore shouldn't a mech with less tonnage for weapons and armor have a smaller profile, for balance reasons alone?

Balance is in the eye of the designer. And is part of what makes a design good / bad. Strengths / Weakness.

LordBraxton, on 18 June 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

throw fictional\technical reasons out for a moment
why should 60 tonners be easier to hit in the torso than 65\70 tonners?

Why not? cause it offends your sensibilities? that is not a good enough reason.

IRL, why is one car way better then another car? Design. Same thing out here. Not saying the design is *good* ... not all mechs were designed equally well. The point was that tonnage != hit box ... chassis = hit box and the *only* arguement that anybody has put forth that is should be different is "sensibilities" and that is rather subjective.

I simply don't care if the tonnage / profile is strange. If the chassis is a good chassis and performs better then another, fine ... performance is not always indicative to tonnage. If we said "tonnage" was king, then why have chassis with the same tonnage?

[Ogresan]

I agree. Mechs are supposed to be 10-12m tall this wild variance is crazy.

[Tombstoner]

Actually size needs to be scaled for difficulty to hit at medium, long and extreme ranges.
a simple liner function would work if total frontal surface area is scaled directly by tonnage.
20 tones = x, 100 tones =5x and adjust surface area accordingly for the art.

its not just absolute height you need to be concerned about but frontage for hitting.

[LordBraxton]

NinetyProof, on 18 June 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

Yes, by design


Balance is in the eye of the designer. And is part of what makes a design good / bad. Strengths / Weakness.



Why not? cause it offends your sensibilities? that is not a good enough reason.

IRL, why is one car way better then another car? Design. Same thing out here. Not saying the design is *good* ... not all mechs were designed equally well. The point was that tonnage != hit box ... chassis = hit box and the *only* arguement that anybody has put forth that is should be different is "sensibilities" and that is rather subjective.

I simply don't care if the tonnage / profile is strange. If the chassis is a good chassis and performs better then another, fine ... performance is not always indicative to tonnage. If we said "tonnage" was king, then why have chassis with the same tonnage?

The only advantage of lower tonnage mechs is their ability to move quickly and be harder to hit

when you make fast and lightweight heavies, the easiest heavies to hit

you are basically making worthless mechs

your signature speaks volumes about your ability to 'think critically'

[xDeityx]

NinetyProof, on 18 June 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

Yes, by design


Balance is in the eye of the designer. And is part of what makes a design good / bad. Strengths / Weakness.



Why not? cause it offends your sensibilities? that is not a good enough reason.

IRL, why is one car way better then another car? Design. Same thing out here. Not saying the design is *good* ... not all mechs were designed equally well. The point was that tonnage != hit box ... chassis = hit box and the *only* arguement that anybody has put forth that is should be different is "sensibilities" and that is rather subjective.

I simply don't care if the tonnage / profile is strange. If the chassis is a good chassis and performs better then another, fine ... performance is not always indicative to tonnage. If we said "tonnage" was king, then why have chassis with the same tonnage?

I see what you're saying but you are attributing design to incompetence. It isn't like the artist submitted the early model for approval and someone in PGI said, "no this is going to be a very powerful 'mech so we have to add the drawback of making it huge for its tonnage." You're giving them way too much credit if you think that's the case. They can't handle that level of complexity; it likely isn't even on their radar.

And if I'm wrong and this was an intentional decision for balance reasons, well I disagree with their decision then. This 'mech really isn't so great that it warrants the penalty of being huge. I don't think PGI should even be trying to balance by size. There should be a standard formula for tonnage:size because otherwise armor value is skewed. 10 points of armor on the Dragon's Center Torso are worth a lot less than 10 points of armor on a zippy little Spider's torso. When they are drawing their armor values from BattleTech, I think arbitrarily screwing with size is just an area where they aren't skilled enough to tread. It's adding one more variable unecessarily into an already overcomplicated brew.

Edited by xDeityx, 18 June 2013 - 12:05 PM.