Jump to content

Mech Sizing In This Game Is Messed Up


27 replies to this topic

#21 Ilithi Dragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 475 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationWazan

Posted 29 June 2013 - 09:42 AM

View PostGenewen, on 28 June 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

They did not admit anything, don't put words in their mouths. They only said that they'd have a look at it. They might very well come to the conclusion that all is "working as intended".

Volume is not weight, Basic physics. The mechs are not one big blob of certain material. They have spaces in them, some have a heavier structure than others and the thickness of the plating might be totally different. I'm not saying that they shouldn't take another look at mech sizes, but this whole volume->weight argument is totally silly.



It's not 100% accurate, no (I am a physics major :( ), but it does give a good rough estimate. Remember, these mechs are all using the same tech, basically the same equipment, the same materials. Yes, there are certain special component types that reduce weight at the cost of increasing space, but those can be accounted for, and the only one that would change the actual volume of the mech, and so have to be considered, would be Ferro Fibrous armor (and changing the mech model with FF vs standard armor equipped, like they do with different weapons, would be a nifty thing to do).

PGI doesn't have to make it an exact match to whatever arbitrary density standard they set, and they can use it as another thing to vary to balance mechs and give each mech its own flavor, but assuming a standard, average density across all mechs is a good way to get a rough approximation of appropriate mech size.

#22 Cubivorre

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 531 posts
  • LocationLocation Location

Posted 29 June 2013 - 01:01 PM

View PostTie Ma, on 28 June 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:


thats a happy tear noob

Pinocchio nose was much more clever - should have left it as it was noob.

Why a pinocchio nose? Because they are liars.

#23 Sigismund

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 30 June 2013 - 05:03 AM

Scaling medium and heavy mechs down may not be physically accurate but then neither are the light mech sizes which they deliberately scaled to all hell to make them playable. If they did the same to medium mechs we'd definitely see more of them in game.

#24 tuffy963

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 208 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco

Posted 01 July 2013 - 05:31 AM

View PostTie Ma, on 21 June 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:


This is a plead to have the mechs Centurion, Trebuchet, Stalker, and Quickdraw's sizes looked at



Based on the most recent announcement about the new hill climbing mechanics, and the PGI's new "size classification" of mechs to help determine each mech's climbing characteristics, it is pretty clear to me that these mechs were intended to be oversized/undersized.

#25 DLFReporter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 2,193 posts
  • LocationAlpenfestung

Posted 01 July 2013 - 05:53 AM

How's that?

#26 tuffy963

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 208 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco

Posted 01 July 2013 - 06:04 AM

View PostDLFReporter, on 01 July 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

How's that?


To quote Thad from the announcement...

Quote

[color=#959595]For the purposes of these movement changes, there are five movement archetypes. Each one has a different threshold at which its Mechs will begin to slow down. I'll call this [/color]SlowdownAngle.[color=#959595] The SlowdownAngle is different for each archetype. Here is a list of the archetypes, and which mech belongs in which archetype. You will notice that the archetype does not necessarily coincide with the mech's weight class.[/color]

Tiny:[color=#959595] [/color]Jenner, Commando, Spider
SlowdownAngle:[color=#959595] 40°[/color]

Small:[color=#959595] [/color]Raven, Cicada
SlowdownAngle:[color=#959595] 35°[/color]

Medium:[color=#959595] [/color]Blackjack, Centurion, Dragon, JagerMech, Trebuchet, Cataphract, Hunchback
SlowdownAngle:[color=#959595] 30°[/color]

Large:[color=#959595] [/color]Quickdraw, Stalker, Awesome, Catapult
SlowdownAngle:[color=#959595] 25°[/color]

Huge:[color=#959595] [/color]Atlas, Highlander, Victor

SlowdownAngle:[color=#959595] 20°[/color]


When I look at this size classification system, I see an intentional focus on making some bigger or smaller regardless of tonnage. As an example they have placed the QD in the "large" category and the Cataphract in the medium category. This means PGI intended for those two mech to deviate from the the weight to size relationship most of us are focused on when posting about mechs being too big. My point is this... They did it on purpose, it is not an oversight.

#27 Tennex

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 6,619 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 08:16 PM

View PostGenewen, on 28 June 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

They did not admit anything, don't put words in their mouths. They only said that they'd have a look at it. They might very well come to the conclusion that all is "working as intended".


Oh no not the dreaded Working as Intended™

Edited by Tennex, 01 July 2013 - 08:16 PM.


#28 SovietKoshka

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • 80 posts
  • LocationSomewhere betwixed the stars of the inner sphere and rim

Posted 01 July 2013 - 11:59 PM

Indeed the mech scaling is sort of off. I suggest to you OP that you add a poll, so Pgi might see the wants of the community.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users