50 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Tennex, on 14 February 2015 - 09:48 AM, said:

I would love to see enforcer compared to the vindicator and wolverine

not claiming 100% perfection, but all should be within a pixel or two of accurate

[Tennex]

Kevjack, on 14 February 2015 - 10:29 AM, said:

Someone with skill could Photoshop it into this pic:

just need a mechlab picture of vindy or wolverine

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 14 February 2015 - 10:09 AM, said:

How are we defining "oversized?" Honest question, sorta.

Honestly, from my own perspective, it is about balance/buffing/nerfing only. A Quickdraw has less armor and firepower than assaults and larger heavies, so it should be a bit physically smaller to compensate for that. Most mediums (barring the Crow) have less armor and firepower than heavies and assaults, so they should be significantly smaller. A Cicada only has a little bit more armor and weapon space than a Jenner, so it should only be slightly larger in size. Etc.


Is this about physics or something? If it is, then we already lose by default because we're fighting giant space robots across the galaxy.

If it's about the Tabletop scaling, then I can post a picture of a Griffin being almost identical in dimensions to a reseen Battlemaster, or Locusts towering over heavies. This is the reason why "55 ton mech size" became an infamous phrase...

it's exactly what I said it was. Scaling. Not talking about balance, not talking about any of that crap. Simply comparing the scale of the mechs across the board, Lights are largely, close to where they should be. TT, "IRL", etc. When increasing mass in a cube, you gain in 3D, not 1 or 2, which is why a 100 ton mech is not simply 2x as tall as a 50 ton mech, and definitely why they don't get 2x taller, wider and deeper.

Right now, I suspect you are just arguing for arguments sake (because you seem to enjoy that), since i am not advocating changing anything, but simply pointing out that a PURELY physical perspective regarding the models, its the not the Lights that are off (overall. Commando has a few issues)

Tennex, on 14 February 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

just need a mechlab picture of vindy or wolverine

look up

[Tennex]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 February 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

not claiming 100% perfection, but all should be within a pixel or two of accurate

looks pretty damn good to me lol

i'm cringing so hard at the shadowhawk and griffin right now

Edited by Tennex, 14 February 2015 - 10:37 AM.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 February 2015 - 10:36 AM, said:

it's exactly what I said it was. Scaling. Not talking about balance, not talking about any of that crap. Simply comparing the scale of the mechs across the board, Lights are largely, close to where they should be. TT, "IRL", etc. When increasing mass in a cube, you gain in 3D, not 1 or 2, which is why a 100 ton mech is not simply 2x as tall as a 50 ton mech, and definitely why they don't get 2x taller, wider and deeper.

Right now, I suspect you are just arguing for arguments sake (because you seem to enjoy that), since i am not advocating changing anything, but simply pointing out that a PURELY physical perspective regarding the models, its the not the Lights that are off (overall. Commando has a few issues)

It isn't possible to separate scaling from game balance because the size/shape of a target is fairly relevant in a game where we have the ability to aim.

So yes, reducing the size of most heavies and assaults does in fact buff them at least a bit (depending on the degree of reduction). Only a few of them could really use this (i.e. Mad Dawg, Catapult, Quickdraw, Dragon), but the rest are scaled fine in this regard for the most part.


I don't really care about the cube-square law because this is a vidya game about fighting giant fictional space robbits across the galaxy. Show me a "IRL" formula that can make a mech like the Stalker be able to even stand up in the first place. Realism for the sake of realism is fruitless here. All that matters is how it plays.

For example, from a gameplay perspective, mediums should be drastically smaller than assaults because of the armor and firepower disparity.


Here is an example of really sad scaling:



Dat Griffin...



PS: In terms of "arguing for the sake of arguing," that's basically what all of us do. That's why these forums exist. Outside of a few lucky threads like Sandpit's Narc buff, the majority of this forum and its users (including me) are practically useless. This is all an academic/opinion exercise for entertainment and the glory of the mech gods.

Edited by FupDup, 14 February 2015 - 10:47 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 14 February 2015 - 10:46 AM, said:

I don't really care about the cube-square law because this is a vidya game about fighting giant fictional space robbits across the galaxy. Show me a "IRL" formula that can make a mech like the Stalker be able to even stand up in the first place. Realism for the sake of realism is fruitless here. All that matters is how it plays.

Cool, so we should just have 4 sets of featureless models, one for each weight class...I'm sure that will sell well.

[Jin Ma]

FupDup, on 14 February 2015 - 10:46 AM, said:

It isn't possible to separate scaling from game balance because the size/shape of a target is fairly relevant in a game where we have the ability to aim.

So yes, reducing the size of most heavies and assaults does in fact buff them at least a bit (depending on the degree of reduction). Only a few of them could really use this (i.e. Mad Dawg, Catapult, Quickdraw, Dragon), but the rest are scaled fine in this regard for the most part.


I don't really care about the cube-square law because this is a vidya game about fighting giant fictional space robbits across the galaxy. Show me a "IRL" formula that can make a mech like the Stalker be able to even stand up in the first place. Realism for the sake of realism is fruitless here. All that matters is how it plays.

For example, from a gameplay perspective, mediums should be drastically smaller than assaults because of the armor and firepower disparity.


Here is an example of really sad scaling:



Dat Griffin...

that is bad scaling. And i hope to god they don't scale by these miniature figures.

They are hex based, and a large determining factor in how big a mech gets is how far appart the mech's legs are to be able to fit on the hex base

which is why they are always so wacky

Edited by Jin Ma, 14 February 2015 - 10:53 AM.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 February 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:

Cool, so we should just have 4 sets of featureless models, one for each weight class...I'm sure that will sell well.

If I had my way I'd have mech size be based primarily on mech tonnage, with some small deviation to compensate for individual model shapes (i.e. a Treb might be slightly taller but slightly skinnier than other 50 tonners, big nose Jenner would remain shorter than a Firestarter, etc).

Edited by FupDup, 14 February 2015 - 10:51 AM.

[NeoAres]

Tennex, on 14 February 2015 - 10:36 AM, said:

looks pretty damn good to me lol

i'm cringing so hard at the shadowhawk and griffin right now

yeah me too. both should be comparable to wolverine.

[Tennex]

What it would look like if they shrinked the centurion, griffin, shadowhawk

Edited by Tennex, 14 February 2015 - 11:12 AM.

[LT. HARDCASE]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 February 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

not claiming 100% perfection, but all should be within a pixel or two of accurate

Poor Vindicator, I said damn.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tennex, on 14 February 2015 - 11:11 AM, said:

What it would look like if they shrinked the centurion, griffin, shadowhawk

and leave the VND oversized? Rude.

Tennex, on 14 February 2015 - 11:11 AM, said:

What it would look like if they shrinked the centurion, griffin, shadowhawk

also, thing is while the GRF is taller it's very wiry with odd proportions, while the WVR is a brick...so the GRF SHOULD be taller than it.

[NeoAres]

FupDup, on 14 February 2015 - 10:50 AM, said:

If I had my way I'd have mech size be based primarily on mech tonnage, with some small deviation to compensate for individual model shapes (i.e. a Treb might be slightly taller but slightly skinnier than other 50 tonners, big nose Jenner would remain shorter than a Firestarter, etc).

This is very obviously a good way to go. From a pure physics standpoint, two mechs of the same weight must have roughly the same volume, unless there is a great discrepancy in density (and why would any mech be less dense than it has to be?). The Shadowhawk, Griffin, Wolverine, and Kintaro should all have the same total volume (that includes anything hanging off it, like the SHawk's guns or the Griffin's missile rack). 50 tonners should be 91% volume of those 55 tonners, and so on.

Harking back to my previous comment about the 35 tonners being too small, they appear from the picture to be about 50% the volume of the 50 tonners (taking into account both height and circumferential discrepancies), when in fact they should be 70% the volume of the 50 tonners. That's a 20% difference between what is and what should be. If we go by the theory that the lights are a good size and the larger mechs should be shrunken, the 50 tonners should actually be about 20% smaller than they currently are.

The Vindicator, meanwhile, is indistinguishable from the 50 tonners. As a 45 tonner, it should be a further 10% less voluminous than them by this calculation, or 30% smaller than it currently is.

Edited by NeoAres, 14 February 2015 - 12:30 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 14 February 2015 - 10:50 AM, said:

If I had my way I'd have mech size be based primarily on mech tonnage, with some small deviation to compensate for individual model shapes (i.e. a Treb might be slightly taller but slightly skinnier than other 50 tonners, big nose Jenner would remain shorter than a Firestarter, etc).

which ...wouldn't have huge size jumps and gaps to increase "balance".....as I said.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 February 2015 - 12:29 PM, said:

which ...wouldn't have huge size jumps and gaps to increase "balance".....as I said.

Gaps aren't inherently bad in and of themselves, provided that they're appropriately compensated for in other areas. In terms of the construction system, an "average" big robot gets plenty of advantages simply by virtue of being big. Only a select few of the bigs could stand to be less big.

This seems to reek of bringing heavy/assault size closer to light size simply for the sake of doing it. Most of the heavies and assaults are not too large. Cataphracts, Jagermechs, Thunderbolts, Orions, Timberwolves, Summoners, Hellbringers, Victors, Stalkers, Highlanders, Banshees, Atlases, Dire Wolves, Warhawks, King Crabs, etc. are not too large.

There might be a case for Battlemasters or Awesomes getting a little bit smaller, but that's about it for assaults.

EDIT: I forgot about the Gargoyle. That one could maybe use a reduction since it's currently similar to Atlas height...



My own process of rescalling would look like this...

1. Adjust Cicada to be closer to the Jenner, but still visually larger.
2. Based on the new Cicada, adjust 45 tonners down accordingly.
3. Then do the 50 tonners.
4. Then the 55 tonners.
5. 60 tonners next.
6. Bring down Catapult a bit.
7....Doneski, probably.

Past the Catapult, the other heavier mechs are scaled fine. 65 tons and up is where tonnage starts to pick up steam and get more beneficial to one's core stats (60 tonners are basically fat mediums for the most part).

Edited by FupDup, 14 February 2015 - 12:49 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 14 February 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

My own process of rescalling would look like this...

1. Adjust Cicada to be closer to the Jenner, but still visually larger.
2. Based on the new Cicada, adjust 45 tonners down accordingly.
3. Then do the 50 tonners.
4. Then the 55 tonners.
5. 60 tonners next.
6. Bring down Catapult a bit.
7....Doneski, probably.

Past the Catapult, the other heavier mechs are scaled fine. 65 tons and up is where tonnage starts to pick up steam and get more beneficial to one's core stats (60 tonners are basically fat mediums for the most part).

which, for all intents and purposes is what I said, sans the detailed outline.....in the first place. Except I would have an "8" which was bring the Assaults down commensurately to match.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 February 2015 - 12:48 PM, said:

which, for all intents and purposes is what I said, sans the detailed outline.....in the first place. Except I would have an "8" which was bring the Assaults down commensurately to match.

The difference is that yours is more "across the board" in regards to reducing all heavies and assaults rather than just the outliers like Quickdraws etc.

The only assaults I think could use a shrink are the Awesome, Gargoyle, and perhaps Battlemaster (I just wish it wasn't so fat/wide :\).

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 14 February 2015 - 12:50 PM, said:

The difference is that yours is more "across the board" in regards to reducing all heavies and assaults rather than just the outliers like Quickdraws etc.

The only assaults I think could use a shrink are the Awesome, Gargoyle, and perhaps Battlemaster (I just wish it wasn't so fat/wide :\).

Thats because if we go, scaling by tonnage, virtually all of them ARE out of scale. Not by the severity the Catapult suffers the ignominy to be, but notably.

So either you shrink your Cicada, then do your 12 step rescaling program, every 5 tons, or ya don't but it really can't be both ways. Because you go up and shrink everything up to the Catapult...you're going to find a sudden size gap between them and the rest.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 14 February 2015 - 12:55 PM.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 February 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

Thats because if we go, scaling by tonnage, virtually all of them ARE out of scale. Not by the severity the Catapult suffers the ignominy to be, but notably.

So either you shrink your Cicada, then do your 12 step rescaling program, every 5 tons, or ya don't but it really can't be both ways. Because you go up and shrink everything up to the Catapult...you're going to find a sudden size gap between them and the rest.

The reason I don't view the heavies past the Cat (or 2-3 certain assaults) to be "out of scale" is because most of them have redeeming traits (durability, firepower, whatever etc.) to more than sufficiently make up for it. I.E. while running around in my Hellbringer, I don't feel "too big" really.

65 tons is right about where "real" heavies start for the construction system (60 tonners are more akin to mediums really) so that doesn't seem like a bad place for a gap to be, if there is to be one.


Normalizing all of them in one swoop wouldn't be the end of the world, but I do think it might invoke the Law Of Unintended Consequences™ in regards to the weight class queues...

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 14 February 2015 - 01:02 PM, said:

The reason I don't view the heavies past the Cat (or 2-3 certain assaults) to be "out of scale" is because most of them have redeeming traits (durability, firepower, whatever etc.) to more than sufficiently make up for it. I.E. while running around in my Hellbringer, I don't feel "too big" really.

65 tons is right about where "real" heavies start for the construction system (60 tonners are more akin to mediums really) so that doesn't seem like a bad place for a gap to be, if there is to be one.


Normalizing all of them in one swoop wouldn't be the end of the world, but I do think it might invoke the Law Of Unintended Consequences™ in regards to the weight class queues...

so...when you say this.....

FupDup, on 14 February 2015 - 10:50 AM, said:

If I had my way I'd have mech size be based primarily on mech tonnage, with some small deviation to compensate for individual model shapes (i.e. a Treb might be slightly taller but slightly skinnier than other 50 tonners, big nose Jenner would remain shorter than a Firestarter, etc).

you actually mean that you want that..unless you deem them competitive already. Because as it stands, all the 55 tonners have redeeming features (as they are all tier 1 or 2, pretty much), and even most of the 50 tonners get on OK, despite their size.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 14 February 2015 - 01:05 PM.