54 replies to this topic

[SteelPaladin]

Tennex, on 08 August 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

The cataphract might actually be fine the size it is. I had initially wanted to size it up so that as a 75tonner, it would stand appart from the 70 tonners. but that probably wasn't necessary, since the catapult was scaled down.

the hunchback was increased by like 1cm (if you can't see the shadow) for OCD reasons. while the other mediums were decreased by a large amount.

The Cataphract IS a 70 tonner. We don't have any 75 ton heavies yet. The Orion is supposed to fill that slot, someday when it actually shows up.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tennex, on 07 August 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

Green if the mech has been reduced in size, red if its been increased in size (only very slightly for jenner, hunchie, cataphract for OCD reasons).

Shadow indicates old size. Difference in shadow shows how much size was changed. (if you don't see a shadow on the red/green mech there wasn't a big adjustment.)

Jenner is actually IMO the correct baseline.


I know that to some that means the Commando and Spider are too small to fit a pilot, but that is assuming the cockpit is entirely in the visible head. Having it extend slightly into the torso compensates for that, and since the "Cockpit hitbox" is largely meaningless anyhow, works fine. And in such, the Hunchback is actually very close as currently portrayed.

Otherwise I largely agree.

[Tennex]

SteelPaladin, on 08 August 2013 - 07:19 AM, said:

The Cataphract IS a 70 tonner. We don't have any 75 ton heavies yet. The Orion is supposed to fill that slot, someday when it actually shows up.

ah you're right. i was under the impression that cataphract was 75 and jager/catapult was 70 fo rsome reason. i'll change the chart around.


wow i'm afraid for what they will do to a 75 ton mech. make it the size of an atlas?

Edited by Tennex, 08 August 2013 - 07:24 AM.

[AgroAlba]

Excellent graphic, Tennex. We can but dream.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 August 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

I know that to some that means the Commando and Spider are too small to fit a pilot, but that is assuming the cockpit is entirely in the visible head.

I had always made the assumption that some of the cockpit (lower portion) is in the CT. I think that is fair.

[Rashhaverak]

Maybe its just my geek peeking out, but I would prefer that math determine the differences in size.

Make the mech look like you want, head, legs, arms, etc., and then scale the mech up or down as appropriate to account for differences in mass. An Atlas is 100 tons and for the sake of convenience can be considered the standard. A 50 ton mech should have 50% of the mass of an atlas. That doesn't mean 50% as tall. If the 50 ton mech is thin in the torso, arms and legs it could nearly match the broad and thick atlas in height.

Edited by Rashhaverak, 08 August 2013 - 08:39 AM.

[ShadowFire]

Some one gin up profile (side) views of all the mechs and then line them up with the front views. Aside from mass issues, thick armor weighing a lot more than let's say, missile magazines, we could then have this debate.

[Bishop Steiner]

ShadowFire, on 08 August 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

Some one gin up profile (side) views of all the mechs and then line them up with the front views. Aside from mass issues, thick armor weighing a lot more than let's say, missile magazines, we could then have this debate.

Tennex and Adridos both have those, too, I believe. And many like the QD, Centy and Catapult are far too massive.

The modelers even sidestep it by saying they just model it how they feel the scale should be.

[Belorion]

Stalker does not need a size increase... it would be massive.

I don't understand what the reasoning behind decreasing all of the mechs other than the ones you think should be increased. You are double changing the size difference there.

[BlueVisionWarrior Online]

someone count up the pixels of the front views, then the pixels of the side views to get rough hittable surface and see how they line up then. 2d views really don't make sense to freak out over when looking at a 3d game IMO

[Lucian Nostra]

Tennex, on 07 August 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

Green if the mech has been reduced in size, red if its been increased in size (only very slightly for jenner, hunchie, cataphract for OCD reasons).

Shadow indicates old size. Difference in shadow shows how much size was changed. (if you don't see a shadow on the red/green mech there wasn't a big adjustment.)

can... can I like this twice?

[Deathlike]

Tennex, on 08 August 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

wow i'm afraid for what they will do to a 75 ton mech. make it the size of an atlas?

Considering the description of an Orion is that it is a mini-Atlas, the answer to your question if answered by PGI modelers would have a resounding YES.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I would make the Awesome slightly thinner, though. Not sure about the lights and Catapult, and I guess the Raven could have the legs shortened a tad.

But I certainly like resizing the Mediums, the Quickdraw and the Stalker.

[Sug]

Lucian Nostra, on 08 August 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

can... can I like this twice?

I feel the same way. Unfortunately it's impossible to scale mechs like that.

[Lucian Nostra]

Sug, on 08 August 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

I feel the same way. Unfortunately it's impossible to scale mechs like that.

Why is it impossible? It's just PGI's lack of ability at the moment

[Rashhaverak]

ShadowFire, on 08 August 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

Some one gin up profile (side) views of all the mechs and then line them up with the front views. Aside from mass issues, thick armor weighing a lot more than let's say, missile magazines, we could then have this debate.

I suppose that's a point to take into consideration, that some things have more mass, but that seems unnecessarily complicated. I'm of the opinion that the mech should just be set at a mass that is the appropriate percentage less than the atlas, and that the total volume of the mech is equivalent to the total mass of the mech.

[Eximar]

Belorion, on 08 August 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Stalker does not need a size increase... it would be massive.

It really does. Should be at least 5% bigger in all axes.

[Tennex]

ShadowFire, on 08 August 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

Some one gin up profile (side) views of all the mechs and then line them up with the front views. Aside from mass issues, thick armor weighing a lot more than let's say, missile magazines, we could then have this debate.

armor weight depends on mech tonnage. how much armor you can put on a mech depends on its tonnage. so it all goes back to tonnage in the armor debate.

BlueVisionWarrior Online, on 08 August 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

someone count up the pixels of the front views, then the pixels of the side views to get rough hittable surface and see how they line up then. 2d views really don't make sense to freak out over when looking at a 3d game IMO

Its not very easy to get the volume for the mechs. But someone went trhough the effort of doing that for the stalker and catapult. you can get the details in this thread

http://mwomercs.com/...-and-quickdraw/

Edited by Tennex, 08 August 2013 - 02:37 PM.

[Sug]

Lucian Nostra, on 08 August 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

Why is it impossible? It's just PGI's lack of ability at the moment

Because there isn't a sliding mech scale adjustment tool. It's impossible because they'd have to almost start from scratch.

[Hexenhammer]

Sug, on 08 August 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Because there isn't a sliding mech scale adjustment tool. It's impossible because they'd have to almost start from scratch.

Too right. Unfortunately its one of those things that have to be done right to make the game look good. and seeing 55 tonne mechs as big as 60-70+ tonne mechs seems wonky. Why build something with that much air inside of it?

He Bob! Lets make a walking death machine Got any ideas?
Yeah! Lets make the thing as big as possible because it'll look cool.
Wont that make it an easy target?
Who cares! It'll look awesome!

Edited by Hexenhammer, 08 August 2013 - 03:43 PM.