20517 replies to this topic

[Requiemking]

Sereglach, on 26 June 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

You keep saying that, but here's something to consider. For the Locust, most of that mass is in the torso, with spindly little legs and nearly nonexistent arms; and that's all applied in the volumetric scaling. When you put that into a humanoid form it's still going to be extremely tiny, because you're expanding that torso mass out into real arms, a slightly elongated torso, and a little thicker legs. Just look at how the Commando is (without anything in the hardpoints) . . . and then shrink it down an extra 25% volume.

After all, compare an Assassin and a Cicada. You'd end up with very similar results between a Wasp and Locust. Sure, it'll get a little taller, but it'll be slimmer in pretty much every other direction. On the other hand, the Cicada has proportionately more bulk in the legs then the Locust, so the Wasp and Locust would likely be even closer in height. The hitboxes likely wouldn't be bad at all.

Okay then, lets compare a pair of mechs with a similar situation to the Wasp and the Locust. The Raven and the Wolfhound. Granted, the Raven fairly long but the Locust is wide. During the Rescale, the Raven got a moderate boost to it's size, just enough to make it uncomfortable to pilot when brawling. Meanwhile, the Wolfhound got ballooned to the point where you are basically being suicidal if you even try to brawl with it. That is the same situation the Wasp is going to be in. It will be ballooned to the point where trying to pull off any of the stuff you can in a Locust is basically tantamount to suicide, all because it a skinny humanoid mech. This is why I am constantly advocating for a redo of the Rescale. Volumetric scaling, by definition, screws over skinny humanoids, and look what mechs are the popular picks for addition. Oh look, skinny humanoids. I don't care if Scaling has to be arbitrary, if that is what it take to ensure a mech isn't DOA, then so be it.

[Sereglach]

Requiemking, on 27 June 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

Okay then, lets compare a pair of mechs with a similar situation to the Wasp and the Locust. The Raven and the Wolfhound. Granted, the Raven fairly long but the Locust is wide. During the Rescale, the Raven got a moderate boost to it's size, just enough to make it uncomfortable to pilot when brawling. Meanwhile, the Wolfhound got ballooned to the point where you are basically being suicidal if you even try to brawl with it. That is the same situation the Wasp is going to be in. It will be ballooned to the point where trying to pull off any of the stuff you can in a Locust is basically tantamount to suicide, all because it a skinny humanoid mech. This is why I am constantly advocating for a redo of the Rescale. Volumetric scaling, by definition, screws over skinny humanoids, and look what mechs are the popular picks for addition. Oh look, skinny humanoids. I don't care if Scaling has to be arbitrary, if that is what it take to ensure a mech isn't DOA, then so be it.

As much as I might not like the speed at which they scale things, their scale is sadly volumetrically accurate (since they equate exact mass to volume ratios). If you take a Raven's Torso off (which is very long and slender, but very wide on a top-down perspective), stand it on end, rip the side torsos off to turn them into arms; and you'll pretty much have a Wolfhound in volume. Yes, the Wolfhound is tall and lanky . . . it's like the Grasshopper of the 35 tonners. However, the Wasp is neither tall nor lanky. I'd expect it to hold out quite well for its size in the 20 ton bracket.

That said, I'll say again that I don't like the speed at which things scale up; however they do stay reasonably true to a direct volumetric linear scale. That means that things go up really quick, then taper off, and gradually expand at slower rates the higher you go. There's a 25% mass difference (which for PGI's volumetric scaling means 25% volume difference, as well) between a Locust and Commando, and a 75% difference between a Locust and Jenner, which means the lights ramp up really fast in volume and size.

Yes, this sucks in some ways (namely the heavier end of the light spectrum), but it also means that the Wasp is still going to stay extremely small; and much smaller than you're giving it credit for. On the other hand, you're trying to take two extremes of volume placement and trying to say that everything is going to end up like that. There's plenty that turn out just fine as I already pointed out with the Assassin/Cicada comparison.

Besides . . . on that note . . . I DID compare a pair of mechs of similar situation and apparently you just didn't like the comparison since it proved my side of the case. You can't just pick and chose the comparisons you make. Also, the Wolfhound isn't in that bad of a place . . . at least it doesn't have the hitboxes of a poor Jenner.

[Karl Streiger]

Sereglach, on 27 June 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

As much as I might not like the speed at which they scale things, their scale is sadly volumetrically accurate (since they equate exact mass to volume ratios). If you take a Raven's Torso off (which is very long and slender, but very wide on a top-down perspective), stand it on end, rip the side torsos off to turn them into arms; and you'll pretty much have a Wolfhound in volume. Yes, the Wolfhound is tall and lanky . . . it's like the Grasshopper of the 35 tonners. However, the Wasp is neither tall nor lanky. I'd expect it to hold out quite well for its size in the 20 ton bracket.

That said, I'll say again that I don't like the speed at which things scale up; however they do stay reasonably true to a direct volumetric linear scale. That means that things go up really quick, then taper off, and gradually expand at slower rates the higher you go. There's a 25% mass difference (which for PGI's volumetric scaling means 25% volume difference, as well) between a Locust and Commando, and a 75% difference between a Locust and Jenner, which means the lights ramp up really fast in volume and size.

Yes, this sucks in some ways (namely the heavier end of the light spectrum), but it also means that the Wasp is still going to stay extremely small; and much smaller than you're giving it credit for. On the other hand, you're trying to take two extremes of volume placement and trying to say that everything is going to end up like that. There's plenty that turn out just fine as I already pointed out with the Assassin/Cicada comparison.

Besides . . . on that note . . . I DID compare a pair of mechs of similar situation and apparently you just didn't like the comparison since it proved my side of the case. You can't just pick and chose the comparisons you make. Also, the Wolfhound isn't in that bad of a place . . . at least it doesn't have the hitboxes of a poor Jenner.

pardon?
twice the mass doesn't meant twice the volume.
not to mention that the important aspect is area and not volume.

crude but I think you get the idea

[Sereglach]

Karl Streiger, on 28 June 2017 - 04:04 AM, said:

pardon?
twice the mass doesn't meant twice the volume.
not to mention that the important aspect is area and not volume.

In PGI's system it seems to be a direct correlation. You can see it as it goes. The Cicada, for example, is about twice the volume of the Locust at twice the tonnage. Granted, PGI's system isn't exactly "perfect", but it seems to be fairly accurate for the objectives they're shooting for. Again, that doesn't mean I like it, but it is what it is.

A crude mockup isn't taking the actual 3D files out of the game and comparing the volumes of the raw mechs. Despite your mockup and what you think, PGI seems to disagree with you. They've done, what appears to be, a linear volumetric scaling formula based on tonnage. That's one reason why the Locust is so small; and yet a mech like the Cicada is such a massive difference in size and volume.

[Odanan]

So... there is still 1 full month before the next mech announcements... what was that talk about the Piranha, anyway?

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 30 June 2017 - 05:47 AM, said:

So... there is still 1 full month before the next mech announcements... what was that talk about the Piranha, anyway?

On the list of mechs to come, but not this year it sounded like.

Still with HMG's being one of the few good out of the gate New Tech, the Piranha would be in a good place.

Still I wish they didn't drop the ball on the HPPC.... I mean seriously, 12 PP with 3 splash for a 10t, 4 crit 14.5 heat weapon is a kick in the teeth.... not to mention the same range profile as the normal PPC (90-540m)...

The LPPC got off better, but not by much, Ghost heat limit of 2.... I hope that will be adjusted to 4....

Other than that my only other gripe is the mess they made out of the isUAC/10/20 ammo count, they are using 20 and 7 respectively, but don't take into account the multiplier for the burst, so the isUAC/20 burns through it's ammo in 2.3 shots, while the 10 does it in 10.

Still that being said, I am really liking the isUAC/10, I can live with a two round burst, would've liked single shell for it with two round for the 20, but I can live with what we got.

[SuperFunkTron]

Odanan, on 30 June 2017 - 05:47 AM, said:

So... there is still 1 full month before the next mech announcements... what was that talk about the Piranha, anyway?

The talk of the piranha is part of a "yet to be determined" alternate option to Solaris from what I understood. Russ was saying that the Piranha would very likely be in the next mech pack, the but the real question was if that instead of the next mech pack, that they garner funding for Solaris to be made to completion before being released in 2018.

As much as a well developed Solaris sounds, I would really like to see them put that effort into giving us at least a moderately immersive game and Faction Play first. A combination of smaller improvements such as Faction Specific Mechs, goals for which planets to conquer with applicable consequences/rewards that affect the factions involved in the territory switch (i.e. small boost in c-bill gains if planet X is capture or reduced earnings for certain mechs if planet X is lost), and some sort of character/political development of the factions that could even just be typed so they don't have to pay voice actors (Make the voting for planet offer alternative goals where one planet gives a smaller c-bill for all mechs used where conquering another planet will only negatively affect the clans earnings, etc...)

I am a huge proponent of more mech packs and see them as a great way to allow for more personalized play. I hate the idea that a mech pack (especially a 4-pack) would be skipped over to create a new mode while we already have one with so much potential just waiting to be given the tweaks it needs to become really immersive and even potentially generate BT "political" discussions as to what the factions plan on doing next!

[Karl Streiger]

Metus regem, on 30 June 2017 - 07:17 AM, said:

On the list of mechs to come, but not this year it sounded like.

Still with HMG's being one of the few good out of the gate New Tech, the Piranha would be in a good place.

Still I wish they didn't drop the ball on the HPPC.... I mean seriously, 12 PP with 3 splash for a 10t, 4 crit 14.5 heat weapon is a kick in the teeth.... not to mention the same range profile as the normal PPC (90-540m)...

The LPPC got off better, but not by much, Ghost heat limit of 2....

make sense with 4 you had 12 instead of 14t ppcs. even the current 6t ppc is controversal.
the hppc stuff however is correct

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 30 June 2017 - 08:16 AM, said:

make sense with 4 you had 12 instead of 14t ppcs. even the current 6t ppc is controversal.
the hppc stuff however is correct

Well it's a 6t 4 crit 2 hard point PPC vs a 7t 3crit 1 hard point PPC. To me you are trading 1t weight advantage for 1 crit and one extra hard point used per PPC combined with 3 slot DHS and 14 slot Endo it becomes a real stop and weigh the pros and cons of it... in other words choice. I like choice.


The advantage of using two LPPC is that you save one ton, and your weapon isn't killed the first time it takes a crit hit. That advantage comes at the expense of space.

The advantage of the PPC is you save space and hard points. Those advantages come at the cost of weight and the weapon being knocked out on a crit.

Edited by Metus regem, 30 June 2017 - 08:32 AM.

[Zergling]

Metus regem, on 30 June 2017 - 07:17 AM, said:

Still with HMG's being one of the few good out of the gate New Tech, the Piranha would be in a good place.

Piranha is too light to handle 12x HMGs.

Even if it upgrades to ferro-fibrous, downgrades from a 180XL to a 160XL, with maxed armor it only has 7.0 tons of weapons space available.
If it strips its arms, it brings that up to 8.0 tons, but with 12x HMGs, that only leaves 2 tons left over for ammunition, which is clearly nowhere near enough.

It'd be better off running 12x regular MGs with 5 tons of ammo.

[Ovion]

Zergling, on 01 July 2017 - 12:18 AM, said:

Piranha is too light to handle 12x HMGs.

Even if it upgrades to ferro-fibrous, downgrades from a 180XL to a 160XL, with maxed armor it only has 7.0 tons of weapons space available.
If it strips its arms, it brings that up to 8.0 tons, but with 12x HMGs, that only leaves 2 tons left over for ammunition, which is clearly nowhere near enough.

It'd be better off running 12x regular MGs with 5 tons of ammo.

The optimised Pirahna (Endo, Ferro, CDHS, 107pts Armour) would have:
(If it gets it) XL200, 6.5T, 26S available
XL190 / 195, 7T, 24S available
XL180, 7.5T, 24S available
XL170, 8T, 22S available
XL145, 8.5T, 20S available
XL100, 9T, 18S available

[Zergling]

Ovion, on 01 July 2017 - 01:23 AM, said:

The optimised Pirahna (Endo, Ferro, CDHS, 107pts Armour) would have:
(If it gets it) XL200, 6.5T, 26S available
XL190 / 195, 7T, 24S available
XL180, 7.5T, 24S available
XL170, 8T, 22S available
XL145, 8.5T, 20S available
XL100, 9T, 18S available

I'm guesstimating that the minimum ammo would be half a ton per HMG, so it'd be 12 tons all up for 12x HMG + 6 tons of ammo.

Best I could see the Piranha doing is 8x HMG... and at that point it might aswell just run regular 12x MGs with similar DPS and better range.

Edited by Zergling, 01 July 2017 - 01:53 AM.

[Ovion]

Zergling, on 01 July 2017 - 01:53 AM, said:

I'm guesstimating that the minimum ammo would be half a ton per HMG, so it'd be 12 tons all up for 12x HMG + 6 tons of ammo.

Best I could see the Piranha doing is 8x HMG... and at that point it might aswell just run regular 12x MGs with similar DPS and better range.

With regular MG's, you *can* get away with 1/2T per pair of MG's (so 1T for 2 CMG + 1/2T ammo, 1.5T for IS).

It runs a little light, but is... *enough* if you have some trigger control and choose your targets.
1/2T per is *ideal* though as it lasts longer, lets you hold the trigger and have some fun on top.

I assume this will translate the same into LMG and HMG too.

Meaning: (Minimum (2+1/2T) / Ideal (2+1T))
(L)MG - 1T / 1.5T
HMG - 1.5T / 2T

So for the Piranha will be:
12 (L)MG 6T / 9T
12 HMG 9T / 12T

So you can happily do 12 (L)MG with the minimum 3T ammo, and have 1-1.5T left over for backup lasers. (likely a trio of ERSL, or an ERML and 2 ERMiL)

And quite right, best you could do is the 8HMG, which wouldn't be as effective as the 12 (L)MG

Edited by Ovion, 01 July 2017 - 02:14 AM.

[Zergling]

Ovion, on 01 July 2017 - 02:13 AM, said:

With regular MG's, you *can* get away with 1/2T per pair of MG's (so 1T for 2 CMG + 1/2T ammo, 1.5T for IS).

It runs a little light, but is... *enough* if you have some trigger control and choose your targets.
1/2T per is *ideal* though as it lasts longer, lets you hold the trigger and have some fun on top.

I assume this will translate the same into LMG and HMG too.

Meaning: (Minimum (2+1/2T) / Ideal (2+1T))
(L)MG - 1T / 1.5T
HMG - 1.5T / 2T

So for the Piranha will be:
12 (L)MG 6T / 9T
12 HMG 9T / 12T

So you can happily do 12 (L)MG with the minimum 3T ammo, and have 1-1.5T left over for backup lasers. (likely a trio of ERSL, or an ERML and 2 ERMiL)

And quite right, best you could do is the 8HMG, which wouldn't be as effective as the 12 (L)MG

HMGs have half the ammo per ton as regular MGs; they really need a half ton per HMG at a minimum, probably 1 ton per HMG preferred.

I doubt even the Mist Lynx is gonna be running 8x HMG when it gets its 1E/4B arms.

[Ovion]

Zergling, on 01 July 2017 - 02:18 AM, said:

HMGs have half the ammo per ton as regular MGs; they really need a half ton per HMG at a minimum, probably 1 ton per HMG preferred.

I doubt even the Mist Lynx is gonna be running 8x HMG when it gets its 1E/4B arms.

Yeah, that's fair.
I completely forgot the lower ammo per ton.
which means 'optimal' 6-7 HMG.
Going spactastic and running an XL100 will get you 8-9.

Edited by Ovion, 01 July 2017 - 02:36 AM.

[Odanan]

Zergling, on 01 July 2017 - 01:53 AM, said:

I'm guesstimating that the minimum ammo would be half a ton per HMG, so it'd be 12 tons all up for 12x HMG + 6 tons of ammo.

Best I could see the Piranha doing is 8x HMG... and at that point it might aswell just run regular 12x MGs with similar DPS and better range.

For 8xHMG, I would take the Mist Lynx or Arctic Cheetah with the upcoming new omnipods.

[SuperFunkTron]

Does anyone know if PGI has made a statement about Civil War era mechs being released? I know they mentioned something about comparable variants to the upcoming invasion heroes, but is there any more information as to specific builds?


Edit: Found it:

https://mwomercs.com...hero-mechs/#ifr

Edited by SuperFunkTron, 02 July 2017 - 08:43 AM.

[Odanan]

SuperFunkTron, on 02 July 2017 - 08:29 AM, said:

Does anyone know if PGI has made a statement about Civil War era mechs being released? I know they mentioned something about comparable variants to the upcoming invasion heroes, but is there any more information as to specific builds?

We know in August PGI will be releasing several extra C-bills variants for the Clan Waves 2&3.

• Arctic Cheetah ACH-E
• Mist Lynx MLX-G
• Ice Ferret IFR-P
• Shadow Cat SHC-H
• Mad Dog MDD-H
• Ebon Jaguar EBJ-D
• Hellbringer HBR-P
• Gargoyle GAR-E
• Executioner EXE-Q

But for the IS mechs, I don't remember if they gave more info and dates about.

[CK16]

I so wanted the Mad Dog D

Also Direwolf C

[Zergling]

Odanan, on 01 July 2017 - 06:02 AM, said:

For 8xHMG, I would take the Mist Lynx or Arctic Cheetah with the upcoming new omnipods.

I don't think the Mist Lynx is gonna be viable with HMGs; it only has 6 tons of weapon's tonnage available (6.5 tons if it strips some head armor), and the HMGs will take up 4 of those tons, leaving just 2-2.5 tons for ammunition, which is about half the minimum for the HMG.

Right now HMGs in the PTS are doing 0.14 damage per shot, with 1000 shots per ton, for 140 damage per ton of ammo (versus regular MGs at 200 per ton).
Even with both Magazine Capacity skill nodes that only increases by another 200 shots per ton, to 160 damage per ton of ammo.
With the best case of 2.5 tons ammo, that is just 400 damage of ammo.

It can do regular or Light MGs just fine though, as those have a base of 200 damage per ton of ammo and the MGs have half the weight.
It could even toss in a couple lasers.

Eg, 4x ER Small + 8x MG with 2.5 tons of ammo (which is 600 damage with both Magazine Capacity nodes).


Arctic Cheetah is a bit less constrained, as it has 8 tons available if it doesn't use an ECM; it could run 8x HMG with 4 tons of ammo (640 damage with both Magazine Capacity nodes).
Still, I expect to see either 8x regular or light MGs, or 6x HMG + laser builds more often on the ACH.

Edited by Zergling, 02 July 2017 - 02:08 PM.