31 replies to this topic

[Jarvis Lancaster]

in UI 2.0 it's much easier to compare the sizes of different mech chassis. In the past, the devs have said that the sizes of the chassis has much thought put into it. Possibly incorporating the internal structure of components such as the hand actuators, legs, engines and missile hardpoints.

But...
Compare the overall size of a quickdraw (60 tons) with an orion (75 tons) and they virtually are the same overall size. by comparison, there is a dramatic difference between a cicada and a shadow hawk at the same fifteen ton difference.

this isn't so much an issue with UI 2.0, but it makes it easier to ask the question about balance as far as armor tonnage vs target size ratio. you would hope that a being lighter should correlate to you being a smaller target, and in the case of the quickdraw, you're wrong.

Also, compare the dragon with the jagermech, here's where the lighter mech is a clearly bigger target both in front silhouette and side profile.

Yes, I am aware that density is a factor. I mean, an apache helicopter is obviously less dense than a sherman tank. and An abrams tank would be in the middle range of light mechs and still be at ankle-level. I've suspected the density of mechs would be somewhere in between lightweight aircraft and thick-armored tanks. but it seems that element varies dramatically across all chassis.

Honestly, this probably doesn't affect the game much. In the end, there may only be a small percentage difference in overall size which will hardly change the balance of the game. But while the devs may have designed the mechs inside and out to establish their size, based on hardpoints, critical slots, internal components and overall tonnage, the players base their play strategy on tonnages and cost/benefit of being hit versus carrying more firepower. And I for one expect a certain continuity when it comes to size and tonnage or at least to know if there is any benefit to be larger with less armor.

I've seen the devs looking to do something about sizes down the road, but not sure if it's related to this. anyone know more?

[MadCat02]

PGI basicly said that adjusting mech sizes is too hard


also they said something along this line " There is no fixed relationship between tonnag and size" some mechs are bigger


What does this mean for balance? Well not hole lot of postitive things

Edited by MadCat02, 12 February 2014 - 10:01 AM.

[Scrawny Cowboy]

I think their response was the cookie cutter hitbox revisit that has been put on hold. Also the Devs in a past AtD said that changing the geometry size of the mechs requires too much effort and resources.

In other words, our Awesomes will stay XXL

[Malcolm Vordermark]

It seems to me that the width of a mech is much more important than its height.

Everyone thought the shadow hawk was going to be DoA because it was as tall as an assault but because it is thin and can twist well it is fairly durable.

So to me, the only problem with size is when they make a mech too wide (and there are a few examples of this).

[Jarvis Lancaster]

If they aren't going to change it, it's fine.
I'm really just being one of those smart-ass nit-pickers with way too much time on their hands. and like i said, with real-world examples of how different vehicles can have dramatically different weights and volumes, I can't argue too hard that these mechs are 'unrealistic' (yeah, only a real nerd uses that word in this context). Even though the Shadow Hawk is tall, I still love it.

[NextGame]

there are several mechs that are comically oversized for their weight, particularly in medium land, but PGI refuse to recognise that it's a problem and wont adjust them.

[Noesis]

NextGame, on 12 February 2014 - 11:25 PM, said:

there are several mechs that are comically oversized for their weight, particularly in medium land, but PGI refuse to recognise that it's a problem and wont adjust them.

This, but they have recognised it is a problem but for economical/resource reasons not game play balance reasons they are resistant to doing the "corrections". Meanwhile more Chassis's are added to the pool with similar issues.

The only reason as to why some of the more recent Phoneix Mechs do well however is also more to do with larger engines and there speed combined with the mobility of JJ's that provides a little more defensive capability. E.g. streak Hawk light killers with almost max XL engines. Either that or they are used as light direct fire support. The idea of using mediums as a skirmisher with more brawling is simply suicidal in this game since some Mediums in this game wont last long at all with their profiles here. The Blackjack and obvious exception when applied with its AC20 but has a much smaller frame.

Also some mechs like the hunchback have their own morphology that makes their primary weapons easy to take out with huge hit box profiles.

This also apparent from the time before the introduction of fast Phoenix Mechs with JJs. That then the Centurion with a zombie build due to Medium fragility was considered the medium of choice. The trebuchet now obviously eclipsed by the Shadow hawk but also a large frame that makes it a death trap to use without its comparable speed. Yet at the same time remembering that the larger the engine you apply to a Medium the less capable their weapon use, or if applying an XL for purposes or roles the relative fragility here. Which if you are trying to use fast mediums as a counter to other meta like entrenched snipers simply makes the task all the more difficult.

[Khobai]

Quote

It seems to me that the width of a mech is much more important than its height.

height = easier to hit from front, back, and either side
width = easier to hit from front and back
depth = easier to hit from either side

height is by far the worst dimension for a mech to have because it makes you easier to hit from virtually every angle.

[Charons Little Helper]

Khobai, on 13 February 2014 - 01:09 AM, said:

height = easier to hit from front, back, and either side
width = easier to hit from front and back
depth = easier to hit from either side

height is by far the worst dimension for a mech to have because it makes you easier to hit from virtually every angle.

I've got to disagree. Your logic is sound for stationary targets.

However, mechs are moving almost entirely laterally. (somewhat verticial - but even with jumpjets, that's far less than their lateral movement) Therefore, it's lateral aiming which is the main difficulty in hitting a mech.

Therefore width & depth are far more important dimensions in how easy a target is to hit than height is.

[General Taskeen]

Rouken, on 12 February 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

Everyone thought the shadow hawk was going to be DoA because it was as tall as an assault but because it is thin and can twist well it is fairly durable.

And everyone puts full armor and huge engines in it to mitigate its huge height. That point is as useless a Awesome. Same thing with a Jenner and its stupid huge CT, even though its small, and slapping on big engines. Similar problem, different issues. A Hunchback with a smaller engine and similar stock armor as a Shadowhawk survives far longer, but has the problem with the hump. Point being, hitboxes and sizes are all over the place.

[Tombstoner]

The op is right there is an issue and it started on day one of development. when you port a TT game into a FPS you cant just cut and paste TT. new rules come into play and how the game interacts with mech art work maters greatly. Its why people have such a hard time with the spider and the awesome has issues.

Making the mech look cool without it affecting combat in any way is imposable, but you can alter the TTK of the artwork.The only way to fix this is to implement armor coefficients for each mech type.Then generate a set of performance spec across all ranges and speeds that way you can see exactly how all mechs perform. Then you can normalize the damage delivered. hence the awesome would be some what stronger to correct for the wide chest.

[C E Dwyer]

MadCat02, on 12 February 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

PGI basicly said that adjusting mech sizes is too hard


also they said something along this line " There is no fixed relationship between tonnag and size" some mechs are bigger


What does this mean for balance? Well not hole lot of postitive things

To add further, the excuse PGI use is a valid one a less dense, heavy, mech could be the sizes they display, and wouldn't be the cardinal sin, but for something they completely ingnore, structual strength.


A 55 ton mech could very well be the size they use, but the materials would be less able to take the recoils and the heavier weapons a heavier construction of the same size could handle,

In other words where an atlas highlander and victor could handle an AC20 a shadowhawk and black jack shouldn't, neither should a Jeager be able to cope with them.

Bottom line is they made poor choices of size, then tried to hide it in engineering density talk, and 'forgot' or deliberately ignored, structual strength, as no matter now advanced a material is, stress and fatigue happens, even in the 31st century.

Also had they said yes, you have all these slots but you can't put certain weapons on certain mechs because it does't have the capability, none could complain about mech size, balancing would be easier

Edited by Cathy, 13 February 2014 - 09:33 AM.

[Mechteric]

The Shadow Hawk is about as tall as a Battlemaster. This seems wrong to me. If anything the 55/60 tonners should be the height of the Centurion, and the Centurion/Treb brought to the Hunchback's height.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 13 February 2014 - 08:36 AM.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

All damn mechs should have same scale to thaiy density and weight.
Its unbeliveble how thay screw it up thair main content of this game.

[Capt Sternn]

You Know a 6'9" basketball player will probably weigh much less then a 6'2" Defensive linebacker. Just saying. Height vs. weight is not an arguement.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

just density

[sokitumi]

Capt Sternn, on 13 February 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:

You Know a 6'9" basketball player will probably weigh much less then a 6'2" Defensive linebacker. Just saying. Height vs. weight is not an arguement.

While that's true, it's also kinda stupid too in a game where balance is supposed to matter. Also your analogy is flawed, a more appropriate comparison would be a 6'2 linebacker vs a 6'8 linebacker. Since, you know, they're playing the same game.

[Trauglodyte]

Tonnage vs size isn't really that big of a problem. What is a problem is more that some mechs have greater agility than others combined with the high alpha payloads that are in game. When you look at Medium mechs, the one that is easiest to hit, by far, is the Hunchback. It also suffers from having a huge hunch which is a great target to hit. On the other hand, the tallest Medium is the Shadowhawk BUT it isn't as hart to hit. The Hunchy is slow and lumbering vs the Shawk, for the most part, is going 100+ kph with JJs. The Trenchy was thought to be hard to hit at one point in time but its odd missile ports make for easier to hit targets. So, don't think of it as "mechs are way too big for their tonnage" and look at it as "some mechs are down right superior in their ability to move".

[oldradagast]

The painful reality is they just messed up the scale on a bunch of mechs. I don't know if it was a case of people simply not paying any attention, or if it was some attempt at reusing resources (mech skeletons / rigging / animations) between different mechs without much thought put into which mechs were being copied - as in "why copy the skeleton of an 80 ton mech for a 55 ton one" or something like that.

I can forgive issues like the Hunchback's hunch - things like that are part of the lore but are also examples of how table-top rules with random hit locations don't translate well into real-time shooters where you always want to aim for the huge weapon pod. I also understand that not all mechs are going to have similarly great hit boxes, hardpoints, etc.

That being said, some of the mechs are just badly out of scale. Compare a Centurion and a Hunchback. Both are 50 tons, but the Centurion is clearly larger in all ways. Now, the Centurion also has some odd hitboxes that keep it alive longer than one would expect, but were it not for that odd feature, it would be completely unplayable. The Quickdraw is badly oversized and stands as large as an assault mech... despite only being 60 tons. The Trebuchet suffers from similar problems. And while the Shadowhawk is thankfully a great mech, it is still too tall. In it's case, however, that extra height didn't kill the design and made it easier to snipe with the shoulder-mounted cannon. Still, it's not properly to scale.

I'm not surprised they aren't going to spend the resources to fix this, but I am surprised nobody caught this during development. Didn't anyone stand a Centurion next to a Hunchback and ask why the Centurion is so much larger? Or why the Quickdraw dwarfs other heavy mechs?

Edited by oldradagast, 14 February 2014 - 11:06 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

This is one of those parts of the game that is a true disaster. Because the art direction is one of their strong points.

But when it comes to modeling the mech, they REPEATEDLY make the same mistakes.

It's very frustrating. And they know it too...someone HAS to have some oversight on this, so that they don't keep releasing giant medium mechs.

It's half the reason the Victor is so good, same size as a medium, jump jets, 80kph, but with assault weapons and armor.