20517 replies to this topic

[Steinar Bergstol]

Meh. The launcher doesn't worry me. It's not like the Bolt is a small target in the first place. It's not gonna be _that_ much easier to hit just because of the LRM launcher.

[espritjaeger]

We have Jaegers, now all we need are Kaijus.

[Odanan]

espritjaeger, on 11 October 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

We have Jaegers, now all we need are Kaijus.

?

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 12 October 2013 - 04:21 AM, said:

?

somebody sounds like they just watched Pacific Rim.

[Colddawg]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 October 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

No thank you! I prefer to think the techs can figure out how to actually unmount a launcher is they choose! And I double prefer all the Phoenix Mechs to not be given early death sentences by being stuck with massive Hunches to target. If they don't have variable geometry, PGI is going to be finding themselves forced to extend that refund window or get more bad community feelings than 3pV.

The issue is you guys are talking about unrealistic modifications to a design. Looking at it from an engineering perspective all of those exterior modules/extras are "hardwired" into the design, especially for the IS 'Mechs. For IS 'Mechs it's easier to just remove the whole arm than change out weapons. You can't remove the hunch from the Hunchback or an external missile launcher like on the Summoner or the Thunderbolt because it's part of the structure itself. However, the missile POD that's on the Atlas's hip was made for easy removal and is not part of the overall structure. Yes, the TRO's leave a lot to personal interpretation, but you're talking about wanting to change the fundamentals of what makes each 'Mech look unique.

[Bishop Steiner]

Colddawg, on 12 October 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

The issue is you guys are talking about unrealistic modifications to a design. Looking at it from an engineering perspective all of those exterior modules/extras are "hardwired" into the design, especially for the IS 'Mechs. For IS 'Mechs it's easier to just remove the whole arm than change out weapons. You can't remove the hunch from the Hunchback or an external missile launcher like on the Summoner or the Thunderbolt because it's part of the structure itself. However, the missile POD that's on the Atlas's hip was made for easy removal and is not part of the overall structure. Yes, the TRO's leave a lot to personal interpretation, but you're talking about wanting to change the fundamentals of what makes each 'Mech look unique.

considering the extensive modifications we make to military hardware TODAY, I have to disagree. Especially when it come to simply removing something. Now I admit, replacing one weapon system with another, especially a mod like switching from an energy weapon with it's powerfeeds to a ballistic with an ammo feed, would indeed be complex, expensive, difficult and prone to require a lot of work to get the kinks out. (Yet another thing lost by not simply FIXING RnR by balancing prices better, then removing the autorepair feature.)

[FireSlade]

Colddawg, on 12 October 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

The issue is you guys are talking about unrealistic modifications to a design. Looking at it from an engineering perspective all of those exterior modules/extras are "hardwired" into the design, especially for the IS 'Mechs. For IS 'Mechs it's easier to just remove the whole arm than change out weapons. You can't remove the hunch from the Hunchback or an external missile launcher like on the Summoner or the Thunderbolt because it's part of the structure itself. However, the missile POD that's on the Atlas's hip was made for easy removal and is not part of the overall structure. Yes, the TRO's leave a lot to personal interpretation, but you're talking about wanting to change the fundamentals of what makes each 'Mech look unique.

Something for you to read up on http://mwomercs.com/...y-an-education/. The actual hunch on a Hunchback and the missile pod on the Thunderbolt look the way that they do due to the armor hanging off the skeleton and weapon. What is difficult to re-engineer is the skeleton (think of a human skeleton) due to how it was designed to handle the different stresses of weight, impacts, and just about everything else that is physics related. Every flat surface that you see is not actually a support structure. It is more of a cosmetic and sealing (to handle harsh environments) feature for the different mech designs.

The Hunchback and a couple other mechs might be the exception to this because it looks to have the weapon mount within the shoulder and not on top of it; whereas the Thunderbolt would be rather easy to remove the missile mount due to it being on top of the skeleton rather than within.

So with all that being said I am for the dynamic mount on the Thunderbolt, and very against it for the Hunchback unless they just reduce the size of the hunch instead of removing it.

[Bishop Steiner]

FireSlade, on 12 October 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

Something for you to read up on http://mwomercs.com/...y-an-education/. The actual hunch on a Hunchback and the missile pod on the Thunderbolt look the way that they do due to the armor hanging off the skeleton and weapon. What is difficult to re-engineer is the skeleton (think of a human skeleton) due to how it was designed to handle the different stresses of weight, impacts, and just about everything else that is physics related. Every flat surface that you see is not actually a support structure. It is more of a cosmetic and sealing (to handle harsh environments) feature for the different mech designs.

The Hunchback and a couple other mechs might be the exception to this because it looks to have the weapon mount within the shoulder and not on top of it; whereas the Thunderbolt would be rather easy to remove the missile mount due to it being on top of the skeleton rather than within.

So with all that being said I am for the dynamic mount on the Thunderbolt, and very against it for the Hunchback unless they just reduce the size of the hunch instead of removing it.

correct. The launcher on many of the PhoeniMechs are pretty obviously not structural, but the ubiquitous "bolt-on". The ammo and power feeds are a different matter, but those really have little to do with the physical structure.

The Hunchback on the otherhand was built around the AC20. That their are non-hunched versions is canonical, hence the term swayback, which originally applied to ANY HBK not mounting an AC20, because, and I quote, "Indeed, a variety of weapons variations exist throughout the Successor States. Eliminating the Type 20 autocannon from the Hunchback makes it almost an entirely new 'Mech. Because of this, many warriors refer to aHunchback with no AC-20 as a "Swayback", as removal of the massive weapon totally alters the 'Mech's torso."

seems pretty canon to remove the hunches on mechs in general based off that. Unless it{s magically restricted to Marik Economechs!

[Colddawg]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 October 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

correct. The launcher on many of the PhoeniMechs are pretty obviously not structural, but the ubiquitous "bolt-on". The ammo and power feeds are a different matter, but those really have little to do with the physical structure.

The Hunchback on the otherhand was built around the AC20. That their are non-hunched versions is canonical, hence the term swayback, which originally applied to ANY HBK not mounting an AC20, because, and I quote, "Indeed, a variety of weapons variations exist throughout the Successor States. Eliminating the Type 20 autocannon from the Hunchback makes it almost an entirely new 'Mech. Because of this, many warriors refer to aHunchback with no AC-20 as a "Swayback", as removal of the massive weapon totally alters the 'Mech's torso."

seems pretty canon to remove the hunches on mechs in general based off that. Unless it{s magically restricted to Marik Economechs!

I can picture it still having a bit of a hunch left which would consist of the armor around the skeleton that supported the massive weapon-or weapons' pod in terms of the 4P and Swayback, but it would still be noticeable and not just have flush shoulders.

In terms of the external missile/weapon mounts, and I'm referencing the Trebuchet 5J here, there would still have to be armor/parts protecting the weak points that would have been the ammo feed/ammo bins/power couplings/etc.

Looking at the new images of the Project Phoenix 'Mechs you can see a circular section of the missile pod which I think will be the part that is removed if no missiles are used, but then there's a boxy section behind that that I believe will remain. I approve of this kind of removal because it goes along the lines of what they did with the TBT-5J and it would still go along with the lines of my first point that it would cause pilots to come to a closer range to determine what the loadout of the enemy 'Mech is.

New images here.
http://www.nogutsnog...pic,1159.0.html
Along this note....the Locust looks a lot like the Jenner from certain angles.
Similarly why are they comparing the Battlemaster's size to the Catapult and the Thunderbolt's size to the Atlas?

Edited by Colddawg, 12 October 2013 - 01:50 PM.

[Jack Gallows]

Damn...what is it with oversized mediums? Shadow Hawk is as big as an Awesome and the Thunderbolt.

[Strum Wealh]

Adridos, on 01 August 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

Here are the scales. Reasonable height and really tiny side profile. They did learn from the last time, thankfully.

With the Phoenix 'Mechs coming out soon, will there be updated diagrams (and possibly a numerical listing of heights in meters, as well)?

[Colddawg]

Jack Gallows, on 12 October 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

Damn...what is it with oversized mediums? Shadow Hawk is as big as an Awesome and the Thunderbolt.

I agree, they are quite large. Each of the new 'Mechs is comparable to one size larger weight class except for the Locust of course.

Edited by Colddawg, 12 October 2013 - 10:54 PM.

[ReguIus]

It's the density that matters...

[Bishop Steiner]

Kurbutti, on 13 October 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:

It's the density that matters...

[FireSlade]

Kurbutti, on 13 October 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:

It's the density that matters...

He is right though. Even though this is a hotly debated issue size does not necessarily determine weight. An example of this would be if you took a 6 foot tall (183cm) male and female and stood them next to each other, they would be a similar size. The big difference between the two would be weight. 135lb (61.2kg) to 180lb (81.7kg) for the average female and 160lb (68kg) to 190lb (86.2kg) for the average male. The difference between the 2 is that men tend to have more muscle mass than women among other differences. The same thing is going on with how PGI is designing their mechs when they use the original references. So right now I think PGI is doing a good job with the mech sizing (maps look off somehow); what sucks about this is large sizes make it easier to hit the smaller weight mech but it has less armor than the comparable heavy or assault mech. This is why some designs do better than others (Awesome vs Stalker). TT did not have this issue since aim was a dice roll but in MWO aim is us and basically a point and click system making an issue with translation.

[Bishop Steiner]

FireSlade, on 13 October 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

He is right though. Even though this is a hotly debated issue size does not necessarily determine weight. An example of this would be if you took a 6 foot tall (183cm) male and female and stood them next to each other, they would be a similar size. The big difference between the two would be weight. 135lb (61.2kg) to 180lb (81.7kg) for the average female and 160lb (68kg) to 190lb (86.2kg) for the average male. The difference between the 2 is that men tend to have more muscle mass than women among other differences. The same thing is going on with how PGI is designing their mechs when they use the original references. So right now I think PGI is doing a good job with the mech sizing (maps look off somehow); what sucks about this is large sizes make it easier to hit the smaller weight mech but it has less armor than the comparable heavy or assault mech. This is why some designs do better than others (Awesome vs Stalker). TT did not have this issue since aim was a dice roll but in MWO aim is us and basically a point and click system making an issue with translation.

that is true.

BUT.

Military hardware almost always is designed as compact as possible, to minimize target profile, and increase it's versatility. Just as one doesn't tend to see wildly disparate sizes amongst MBTs of today, you will see only minor fluctuations in density and such in military hardware.

So whilst SOME disparity is to be expected, we should not see extreme examples, except as possible outliers. And it would be mechs like the Orion, and the Thunderbolt most likely to be large for their mass, as they are essentially updated primitive mechs.

[FireSlade]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 October 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

that is true.

BUT.

Military hardware almost always is designed as compact as possible, to minimize target profile, and increase it's versatility. Just as one doesn't tend to see wildly disparate sizes amongst MBTs of today, you will see only minor fluctuations in density and such in military hardware.

So whilst SOME disparity is to be expected, we should not see extreme examples, except as possible outliers. And it would be mechs like the Orion, and the Thunderbolt most likely to be large for their mass, as they are essentially updated primitive mechs.

I agree with you on this but Battletech was not created by people that know tactical and military sense. So when they created the images for these mechs they used sizing was not a consistent formula. PGI would have to follow this from the references to keep the purists happy but it causes a huge conflict with actual gameplay. I cannot wait for my favorite mech, Timber Wolf, to be released and thanks to the size of its parts and having less armor due to it having to protect those big "ears" and a huge cockpit it is going to really suck in MWO. I will still use it regardless ofhow bad that it is; but if PGI modified the Timber Wolf to make it more viable in MWO, people are going to revolt over it including myself. While some mechs could use a small size adjustment; would anyone that truly knows Battletech ever be happy over losing some of the key points that made a certain mech that mech, that they fell in love with in the beginning? I think that the only ones that would be happy would be the kids that never knew Battletech in it's original form.

Edited by FireSlade, 13 October 2013 - 10:53 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

FireSlade, on 13 October 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

I agree with you on this but Battletech was not created by people that know tactical and military sense. So when they created the images for these mechs they used sizing was not a consistent formula. PGI would have to follow this from the references to keep the purists happy but it causes a huge conflict with actual gameplay. I cannot wait for my favorite mech, Timber Wolf, to be released and thanks to the size of its parts and having less armor due to it having to protect those big "ears" and a huge cockpit it is going to really suck in MWO. I will still use it regardless ofhow bad that it is; but if PGI modified the Timber Wolf to make it more viable in MWO, people are going to revolt over it including myself. While some mechs could use a small size adjustment; would anyone that truly knows Battletech ever be happy over losing some of the key points that made a certain mech that mech, that they fell in love with in the beginning? I think that the only ones that would be happy would be the kids that never knew Battletech in it's original form.

While valid points, here is the thing, while we have been given vague ideas about scale over the years, there has never been canon set in stone height son most mechs. Hence, while messing with key attributes might be problematic, Scale should not be. The most "Official" post comes from CGL. 8-14 meters. I think it pretty safe to say we passed that a while back. So adjusting scale to make things sensible should not offend too many purists. Nor tweaking the hit box overlaps. Wholesale changes like switching the bullet shaped fuselage of a TimberWolf to some odd boxy thing? Yeah, that'll irk folk right powerfully.

[FireSlade]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 October 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

While valid points, here is the thing, while we have been given vague ideas about scale over the years, there has never been canon set in stone height son most mechs. Hence, while messing with key attributes might be problematic, Scale should not be. The most "Official" post comes from CGL. 8-14 meters. I think it pretty safe to say we passed that a while back. So adjusting scale to make things sensible should not offend too many purists. Nor tweaking the hit box overlaps. Wholesale changes like switching the bullet shaped fuselage of a TimberWolf to some odd boxy thing? Yeah, that'll irk folk right powerfully.

True and that is why I would be ok with a small scale change to bring some mechs in line with the others; but that would be just the mediums. The lights have their speed to protect them and they might be a tad too small when you think of the pilot fitting in the cockpit and having a fusion reactor. Heavies have the speed and armor to take a few hits and they were always big (possibly the Quickdraw could be off). Assaults sit at the end on that lineup showing that they are in the right place.

[Bishop Steiner]

FireSlade, on 13 October 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

True and that is why I would be ok with a small scale change to bring some mechs in line with the others; but that would be just the mediums. The lights have their speed to protect them and they might be a tad too small when you think of the pilot fitting in the cockpit and having a fusion reactor. Heavies have the speed and armor to take a few hits and they were always big (possibly the Quickdraw could be off). Assaults sit at the end on that lineup showing that they are in the right place.

Spider and Commando need slightly bigger. Cicada a touch smaller. Actually, all the Mediums but the Hunchback, smaller. Quickdraw smaller. Catapult smaller. Stalker bigger.