427 replies to this topic

[Nryrony]

3 Things:

1. Some medium mechs are too slow, all of them should be able to reach a speed of 100+

2. All hit-boxes and mech sizes need an overhaul

3. Heavy and Assult mechs need far longer turning and twist times, even with articulated arms. In addition they need dead angels (bigger ones to be more precise) - a true weak-spot where they can't touch you. I'm not talking about 10 or 20 % here i'm talking about 75 or 60 % turn time increase, possibly more, depending how it works out.

Edited by Nryrony, 10 October 2013 - 09:51 PM.

[Hythos]

Johnny Reb, on 10 October 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

Only certain mediums, i.e. the ones that can keep up, no reg hunchie, treb, bj or cent. However, faster ones, bj-1x, cent-d, treb-3c and kintaro would be great on such maps as light backups.

edit: also with the big maps as is, teams get spread apart, with a HUGE map would need even bigger drops.

Hmmmm I guess;
Then BattleValue becomes the only real metric with limiting flavor. I'm sure someone else has already mentioned it here, and because that crosses over to MatchMaking territory (and kinda off-topic), I'll leave it at that. ** Edit - how about 'Mech Value' in match-making? (again, probably already mentioned).

I would *love* to see Battalion vs Battalion matches on HUGE maps, though we have no expectation that MWO can/will be any larger than Company-scale.

Edited by Hythos, 10 October 2013 - 09:52 PM.

[Cragger]

Hythos, on 10 October 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

Mass and density are not proportional. An engine will occupy roughly the same volume, therefor densities will vary. Volume by tonnage isn't relative.

I'd like to see HUGE maps where speed and role matters. IF maps were much larger than Alpine or Crimson Straight, Assaults won't be popular, Heavies would probably be the new maximum weight-class, and Mediums / Lights will be the common work-force. Assaults would still have a place in a Command Lance, or for garrison.

Critical slots and volume are not proportional either and even if they were larger tonnage would still mean a larger volume. Higher tonnage mechs have to have a larger and heavier core chassis to support it. Armor is armor and the more you put on the thicker it is and thus the more mass it has.

Battletech does not in any way follow reality. Because in reality a 100 ton Behemoth tank would wipe the floor with a battlemech for two reasons.

1. If you devote say 50 tons to armor the less surface area the vehicle has the thicker the armor will be for that tonnage. Battlemechs are are extremely surface area inefficient in that regard.

2. Battletech made mechs superior because battlemechs have 11 places for dice rolled shots to land. Combat vehicles have 5 meaning that each section is going to take hits more often. And ground vehicles could not survive any sections being destroyed.

Battletech TT was a fictional creation utilizing a dice roll determination. Size and profile of the mech simply didn't matter, it wasn't factored in to the rules. Mechwarrior was trying to take those dice roll determination concepts and make them human conscious choice determined and in such a case size and profile factor hugely into the capacity to hit the target.

[Johnny Reb]

Hence, why in real time mediums need to be smaller and/or faster!

[aniviron]

Nryrony, on 10 October 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

3 Things:

1. Some medium mechs are too slow, all of them should be able to reach a speed of 100+

2. All hit-boxes and mech sizes need an overhaul

3. Heavy and Assult mechs need far longer turning and twist times, even with articulated arms. In addition they need dead angels (bigger ones to be more precise) - a true weak-spot where they can't touch you. I'm not talking about 10 or 20 % here i'm talking about 75 or 60 % turn time increase, possibly more, depending how it works out.

I disagree with 1, there is definitely a place for slow mediums. I agree on 2 and 3.

But the thing about 3 is this: pilot efficiencies are broken. Lights and mediums do certainly notice faster turning times, but it's not really that big of a deal. Even with the highest mouse sensitivity settings, a jenner with no unlocks will pretty much be able to turn its torso as fast as I can move my mouse. Making that 20% faster doesn't really do much for it; and it doesn't matter as much that it can turn 20% farther to the side, as it already has a great turning radius.

Assaults and heavies, on the other hand, benefit immensely from these boosts, all of which are aimed at increasing mobility and agility. For anyone who hasn't mastered atlai, go ahead and play the trial atlas right now and you'll see what I mean. It's hard to hit lights in that thing, and if they get in your rear quadrant, you're either going to have to get your back to cover or hope your teammates are paying attention. Sure, anyone who wanders in front of you or to the sides will be hurting pretty badly, but you're just not fast enough to really deal with a few lights or mediums behind you. Once you've unlocked all the skills for a chassis, you still need to watch for lighter mechs, but they don't pose the same danger. When you have mastery, you can swat lights and mediums with impunity.

It doesn't help that the turning speeds have been designed around stock engines, all of which are laughably small compared to what we all run with our endo and DHS. Just swapping those two in easily lets you boost engine rating by 50-75 while still improving cooling efficiency and maybe even adding in more guns. With a bigger engine comes better twisting as well, and at this point very few people are still running stock engines. Coupled with the efficiency unlocks, a mastered assault can twist and turn like something 50 tons lighter than it, while the mechs that were already agile to begin with really gain nothing.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

aniviron, on 10 October 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

I disagree with 1, there is definitely a place for slow mediums. I agree on 2 and 3.

But the thing about 3 is this: pilot efficiencies are broken. Lights and mediums do certainly notice faster turning times, but it's not really that big of a deal. Even with the highest mouse sensitivity settings, a jenner with no unlocks will pretty much be able to turn its torso as fast as I can move my mouse. Making that 20% faster doesn't really do much for it; and it doesn't matter as much that it can turn 20% farther to the side, as it already has a great turning radius.

Assaults and heavies, on the other hand, benefit immensely from these boosts, all of which are aimed at increasing mobility and agility. For anyone who hasn't mastered atlai, go ahead and play the trial atlas right now and you'll see what I mean. It's hard to hit lights in that thing, and if they get in your rear quadrant, you're either going to have to get your back to cover or hope your teammates are paying attention. Sure, anyone who wanders in front of you or to the sides will be hurting pretty badly, but you're just not fast enough to really deal with a few lights or mediums behind you. Once you've unlocked all the skills for a chassis, you still need to watch for lighter mechs, but they don't pose the same danger. When you have mastery, you can swat lights and mediums with impunity.

It doesn't help that the turning speeds have been designed around stock engines, all of which are laughably small compared to what we all run with our endo and DHS. Just swapping those two in easily lets you boost engine rating by 50-75 while still improving cooling efficiency and maybe even adding in more guns. With a bigger engine comes better twisting as well, and at this point very few people are still running stock engines. Coupled with the efficiency unlocks, a mastered assault can twist and turn like something 50 tons lighter than it, while the mechs that were already agile to begin with really gain nothing.

Unfortunately this will never get fixed as the majority of people run heavies and assaults and would flood the forum with their tears. Turning and torso twisting etc should be de-linked from engine size and be a chassis dependant factor only. Only then can you balance mobility.

[Accursed Richards]

Huntrava, on 09 October 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

Heavy > Light > Medium ...because PGI emphasizes the kill death ratio (KDR) the same way every other FPS game does. By making the KDR a focal point of the game, people spend more time blowing each other up than actually achieving their objectives.

Sound familiar? How many matches have you seen every mech brawling in the middle of the map, while a single light is surreptitiously capturing objectives? My point exactly.

The viability of a medium mech is based on its versatility. MWO is about as dynamic as a bag of hammers, so there's really no need for mediums.

Also, if you do decide to cap or play Conquest (maybe you have a phobia of money?), you're better off with a bunch of lights, who get to the objectives faster and cap just as quickly.

dymlos2003, on 09 October 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

I main mediums and I usually put out 400+ dmg with each. Sure there are flaws but don't blame sucking on the Mech when it's the pilot that's garbage

Yeah? Well, I have a KDR of infinity plus one so nyaaah! (blows raspberry)

[Karl Streiger]

Nryrony, on 10 October 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

3. Heavy and Assult mechs need far longer turning and twist times, even with articulated arms. In addition they need dead angels (bigger ones to be more precise) - a true weak-spot where they can't touch you. I'm not talking about 10 or 20 % here i'm talking about 75 or 60 % turn time increase, possibly more, depending how it works out.

I can live with that. I drive mainly Assaults - and I don't want to brawl with that thing (even the worst shooter hit you at brawl distance because it is impossible to miss such a large chunk of metal)

I would gladly leave it to mediums and heavys to punch and kick it out.

[Jomacdo]

Scaling goes without mentioning.

After that's fixed just double the bonus from speedfreak, most builds that would take advantage of a higher engine cap would get pretty close to a light's firepower or at least sustainable firepower.

Typical 50 tonner with a typical 250 would go 97kph which would be a perfect butter zone.
Drop down some ratings for more firepower for a mini-heavy or upengine for a mega-light.

[JuiceKeeper]

since i dont think that scaling will happen ever even it would be probably best, next thing which can help might be reducing size of max engine without loosing top speed that would help quite lot. Would be much better if u would get speed of 360 from 310 engine and saved tonnage can go for weapons and armor which would help them with mobility and carying good punch and maybe more modules.

[Vassago Rain]

Snowcrow, on 09 October 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Tonnage limits will make mediums popular. The devs are working on it.

I won't play a bad robot. No one else will. Here's what's gonna happen.

People will take more lights, so they can take more assaults, and that's that. No one's gonna bother with a 50 tonner that has the same hit boxes as a 100 tonner. There's no reason to.

[TheGreatNoNo]

I kind of belive PGI to hate mediums mechs with a white hot passion. But that is me.

[Vassago Rain]

Barantor, on 10 October 2013 - 09:12 PM, said:

More rewards.

People like shiny things, give mediums more xp/cbills for assists and component destruction.

Easier to alter that than redoing large quantities of game material like some are suggesting.

This has no effect, because the mediums are still walking XP and gold pinatas, and bigger rewards doesn't change my end game goal of having a min-maxed mech.

They need to be smaller. A 50 tonner's legs shouldn't be as big as an 80 tonner's legs. I don't care about square cube laws, or reality. Giant robots shooting each other aren't realistic. Make it functional.

Forcing weight limits? People take ravens and jenners, while saving 15 tons for beefier assaults.

MEDIUMS HAVE TO BE GOOD ON THEIR OWN MERITS. You can't artifcially force me to play a bad robot. It's not gonna happen. It'll never happen. I'll play a different game before someone forces me to be the mandatory filler character.

In the olden days, it used to be 'just wait until we have fast mediums,' then it was 'just wait until we have jump jetting mediums.' Then it was 'just wait until the metagame abusing mediums arrive.'

Well, we had all of that, and mediums are less popular now than ever before. Cents are played because of their bugged damage transfer. Some still use 4SPs.



So the primary medium is used because...of bugs? Without the damage transfer, no one would play cents, either. Hit point math and engine weight already work against the 40-50 tonner viability. My 3L raven is a better combat platform than ANY current medium.

We're over a year into this game, and some are still pretending all is well. All is not well. Please stop.

[C E Dwyer]

To make viable and not hit MWO population by forcing people to play what they don't want to is to make them attractive.

PGI said another pass isn't going to happen until they have looked at the others so...no rescaling no new engines...


The only thing left, that's simple to code, is to buff C-bill income.

and hope that CW gives people a reason to play them, other than becuase they like or want to grind them.

[Kitane]

Vassago Rain, on 11 October 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:

I won't play a bad robot. No one else will. Here's what's gonna happen.

People will take more lights, so they can take more assaults, and that's that. No one's gonna bother with a 50 tonner that has the same hit boxes as a 100 tonner. There's no reason to.

There isn't a 50t mech in the game that would be even remotely comparable to Atlas.

Weight limits will make the game more medium friendly.

Data from matches gathered in Allistair's thread tell us that the current average composition is:
~40% heavy mechs
~25% assault mechs
~18% medium mechs
17% light mechs

That means that 65% of enemies outclass the medium mech (25% massively), 20% give him an equal chance, and 20% are weaker (arguably) than him. Those are horrible odds. Horrible. That is the main reason why medium mechs are unpopular, why they are "bad".

The weight limits will reduce the average weight to ~55t, which will instantly ease the pressure a medium mech faces in combat, giving him multiple enemies that are either comparable or weaker. The mech will still struggle against 65t+ heavy mechs and assault mechs, but there will be only few of them to deal with.

Edited by Kitane, 11 October 2013 - 03:23 AM.

[Charons Little Helper]

Gaan Cathal, on 10 October 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

Lights are as good/better and less tonnage, though.

Both can be useful - but I don't think it'll be much of a contest if hit registration ever is at 100%. Even as it is - my hunchies eat lights for breakfast.

[Strum Wealh]

RandomLurker, on 10 October 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

PGI's artists pretty clearly mistake a linear increase in weight to = a linear increase in height. In reality, a linear increase in weight should result in a cubed increase in height. I've got some diagrams of a very basic explanation of the square cube law kicking around; here's a link but I won't embed them this time cause they are large and obnoxious.

http://imgur.com/o7KwpiF
http://imgur.com/YYiTpbC

Yes, S/C law applies to volume not mass I know, but given that mechs have a similar construction all around (internal skeleton, engine, layers of armor plating, etc), volume=weight should be a close enough approximation to work with. Gameplay balance trumps all of course, as well.

What this means is that lights should be slightly larger (would fix spiders - raven/jenner is fine imo), mediums should be slightly smaller (would fix mediums - hunchback and cicada IMO are the only mediums scaled right), and heavies and assaults would be slightly smaller as well ( would fix quickies and help dragons, and reduce the alpha meta slightly since even assaults will be harder to focus). In other words, all sizes should shift towards the middles.

RandomLurker, on 10 October 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

In reality, a linear increase in weight should result in a cubed increase in height.

No, it doesn't.

The Square-Cube Law ("SCL") you're trying to invoke (again) absolutely does not necessarily mean that "a linear increase in weight should result in a cubed increase in height".
The SCL indicates that "when an object undergoes a proportional increase in size, its new volume is proportional to the cube of the multiplier and its new surface area is proportional to the square of the multiplier".

In other words, the SCL states that a linear increase (or decrease) in overall size results in a cubic increase (or decrease) in total volume and a square increase (or decrease) in total surface area.

• That is, if you take a 'Mech model and make it "twice as big" (that is, multiply all dimensions by two), the new (scaled-up) model will have four times the total surface area (because 2^2 = 4) and eight times the total volume (because 2^3 = 8).
  
• Alternatively, if you take a 'Mech model and make it "one-and-a-half times as big" (that is, multiply all dimensions by 1.5), the new (scaled-up) model will have 2.25 times the total surface area (because 1.5^2 = 2.25) and 3.375 times the total volume (because 1.5^3 = 3.375).

To provide a practical example:

• The cube-root of 2 (that is, 2^(1/3)) is 1.2599 (round to 1.26), and the cube-root of 4 (that is, 4^(1/3)) is 1.5874 (round to 1.59). The reciprocal of 1.26 (that is, 1/1.26) is 0.79 and the reciprocal of 1.59 (that is, 1/1.59) is 0.63.
  
• We will assume, for the sake of the example, that all 'Mechs would be scaled to the MWO Atlas (height of 17.6 meters) and that all 'Mechs will have the same, or nearly the same, average density (that is, total mass divided by total volume will be the same, or close to it). Thus, volume and mass become proportionally-related (that is, a doubling of volume when density is constant results in a doubling of mass, and vice versa; a halving of mass when density is constant results in a halving of volume, and vice versa).

Under these conditions, an Atlas rescaled to the same mass as a Centurion (that is, one-half of the Atlas' original mass) would be 79% of the physical size of the original Atlas (e.g. 79% height, 79% width, 79% depth, 79% limb diameter/thickness, etc.), which would make it 13.9691 meters tall (round to 13.97 meters).

The current height of the MWO Centurion is 14.7 meters (or 48.228 feet), a difference of 0.7309 meters (or 2.398 feet) "too tall".

Likewise, an Atlas rescaled to the same mass as a Commando (that is, one-quarter of the Atlas' original mass) would be 63% of the physical size of the original Atlas (e.g. 63% height, 63% width, 63% depth, 63% limb diameter/thickness, etc.), which would make it 11.0873 meters tall (round to 11.09 meters).
The current height of the MWO Commando is 9.7 meters (or 31.824 feet), a difference of 1.3873 meters (or 4.552 feet) "too short".

Aditionally, bear in mind that neither the Commando nor the Centurion are proportionally identical to the Atlas; both of the former have far-thinner (and thus less voluminous) limbs than would be suggested by the preceeding calculations, with the displaced volume needing to be either transferred to the body (making the 'Mech broader or deeper... or taller) or remaining in the limbs by changing their length (where lengthening the legs will, of course, also make the 'Mech taller) in order to maintain the constant density relationship.
As such, it is in fact quite logical and sensible that a Hunchback, being much more stoutly-built than the relatively-lean Centurion and Trebuchet, is also significantly shorter than either of them, despite all of them being the same mass (and assuming that all of them should have similar average density).

In summary: depending on one's reference points and which scaling algorithms are used, (at least some of) the Lights are generally too small & the sizes of (at least some of) the Mediums are fairly close to where they "should" be, and the scaling of a number of the 'Mechs in general, while not perfect, is not so drastically off as some might believe.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 11 October 2013 - 04:06 AM.

[Ghogiel]

Kitane, on 11 October 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:

There isn't a 50t mech in the game that would be even remotely comparable to Atlas.

Weight limits will make the game more medium friendly.

Data from matches gathered in Allistair's thread tell us that the current average composition is:
~40% heavy mechs
~25% assault mechs
~18% medium mechs
17% light mechs

That means that 65% of enemies outclass the medium mech (25% massively), 20% give him an equal chance, and 20% are weaker (arguably) than him. Those are horrible odds. Horrible. That is the main reason why medium mechs are unpopular, why they are "bad".

The weight limits will reduce the average weight to ~55t, which will instantly ease the pressure a medium mech faces in combat, giving him multiple enemies that are either comparable or weaker. The mech will still struggle against 65t+ heavy mechs and assault mechs, but there will be only few of them to deal with.

Hmmm yeah weight limits. As long as those limits force the weaker pilots on my team into the weaker mechs like mediums then I'm fine with that. Can't be having scrubs on my team using the good mechs and getting respectable Cbill earnings.

How about founders get first pick then it's base on who has the best KDR.

[Mehlan]

Ghogiel, on 11 October 2013 - 04:02 AM, said:

Hmmm yeah weight limits. As long as those limits force the weaker pilots on my team into the weaker mechs like mediums then I'm fine with that. Can't be having scrubs on my team using the good mechs and getting respectable Cbill earnings.

How about founders get first pick then it's base on who has the best KDR.

Well considering pgi made some commentary about levels... might it fall better to high lvl to lower, if/when it's ever implemented? There have been some 'founders' Im not real impressed with their display of intelligence or combat ability.

[Strum Wealh]

Captain Stiffy, on 10 October 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

Credit to "Adrios"


Credit to "Minsc"

The first image is a composite of work by Adridos (first line) and (IIRC) Bishop Steiner (the second and third lines).

The second image is page 303 of Technical Readout: 3039.

There is also this chart (of unknown origin, to the best of my knowledge), for the primary Invasion-era Clan OmniMechs (and using what appears to be BattleTech-scale sizing of "approximately 8 to 14 meters"):

Thus far, MWO 'Mechs have been about 3-4 meters taller than might be implied by their BT counterparts, so the Clan 'Mechs may follow the same pattern.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 11 October 2013 - 04:44 AM.