33 replies to this topic

[BulletProofPanda]

The stalker has a HUGE side profile, looks like your trying to hit the fuselage of a 737 lol.

[Morang]

InRev, on 21 June 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

I sincerely doubt PGI will ever do anything about mech scale. If they cared, they wouldn't have released the Quickdraw at its current size in the first place, considering the hooplah when the Treb first came out. I genuinely believe that not one **** is given by PGI about mech size as a balance issue.

I think on the contrary that they are overzealous in using mech size for balance, up to level where it can be balancing, but breaks common sense and immersion. They'd better use quirks more for balancing, while scaling the mechs more or less along the cube root of their mass (of course taking into account horizontal orientation of some torsos versus vertical, regular vs chicken walkers ETC). Humanoid 60-tonner bigger than humanoid 80-tonner makes no sense.

[Asmosis]

Finn McShae, on 21 June 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

I think the scaling is really being blown out of proportion for a lot of folks here. Anything larger than a Jenner is about as easy as anything else to hit for me. Hitbox tweaking, maybe, but really I don't notice any difference when targeting.

agree with this. The only mechs I ever consider "how hard will I be to hit in this?" are light mechs because you need a combination of small size PLUS 140kmph+ in order to dodge stuff, and most lights can't even do that so what do I care if that stalker im shooting at is 5% shorter than is should be? its panels are the size of billboards already and it can't maneuver to save itself. you can quite easily keep hitting a stalkers front CT even when its running in the opposite direction >.>

If you can't hit a desired spot on a stalker you should probably stop trying to hit mechs with untargeted lrms (even then, 50/50 you'll still hit the right place).

This is not real life and the size of mech NEEDS to be based on more than its physical dimenions in RL would be. Theres a reason commandos aren't 2/3's of the height of an atlas, which is about what it would be if stuff was build to scale.

Edited by Asmosis, 25 June 2013 - 04:06 AM.

[Scromboid]

FWIW with the state of weapons right now, scaling down most of the robots that can boat big Alphas would do more to hurt the game than help.

Stalkers are pretty easy to hit right now as are cats, unfortunately, but I can just see them making some of the robots a bit smaller with the engine troubles they are having now at extreme ranges and the games turning into smaller mechs punding the larger ones with the same loadouts because they cannot be seen.

I think they wil get there but there are some seriously more important and pressing issues atm.

[Syllogy]

I buy new mechs daily. I could care less about any sort of boycott related to scaling.

Although, I will say that there is merit in changing the scales, a question was recently submitted to the art team asking them why they chose to make the medium/heavy mechs as big as the assault mechs.

[Bagheera]

I'm all in for fixing scaling issues, but since mech releases are tied to PGI revenue, I don't think a full on hold-off is the answer. As annoying as scaling problems are, as long as they are fixed eventually, I'm fine with it.

[TehSBGX]

Mech Scaling should be taken care of after balance issues.

[Tennex]

I think this poll is less of a boycott. and more of a plead for PGI to spend time working on scaling of previous mechs, instead of releasing new mechs.

[verybad]

If you resize mechs, then you have to redo all their animation. It's a big project, and highly unlikely to happen. It's got to be done right BEFORE release. Not arguing about how some mechs are not sized right, just that the likelihood of them changing is about zero.

[Tie Ma]

verybad, on 25 June 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

If you resize mechs, then you have to redo all their animation. It's a big project, and highly unlikely to happen. It's got to be done right BEFORE release. Not arguing about how some mechs are not sized right, just that the likelihood of them changing is about zero.

knowing that, you'd think they would have released the quickdraw sized in the right weight class

[AgroAlba]

Well, holding off on new mechs would not be good for their business, so they're not going to do that.

That said, I think they should definitely re-evaluate their scaling and put in place some standards. I would really like to see some of the scaling looked at again.

[verybad]

Tie Ma, on 25 June 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

knowing that, you'd think they would have released the quickdraw sized in the right weight class

Yeah, you would think...I suspect they may have shared some animations between some mechs, and the size was necessary in order to do so. It's a timesaving thing that would explain a lot. EG Catapult-Stalker, Quickdraw-Highlander, and so on. I don't KNOW that they did this, but it's not uncommon in game production.

[Tie Ma]

verybad, on 25 June 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

Yeah, you would think...I suspect they may have shared some animations between some mechs, and the size was necessary in order to do so. It's a timesaving thing that would explain a lot. EG Catapult-Stalker, Quickdraw-Highlander, and so on. I don't KNOW that they did this, but it's not uncommon in game production.

woah. i hope you are wrong.

because if its true that is an all new level of lazy for PGI

Edited by Tie Ma, 25 June 2013 - 10:00 AM.

[Redshift2k5]

Demanding they "fix" something PGI doesn't see as a "problem" is just wasting your breath.