168 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

Metus regem, on 30 March 2015 - 11:40 AM, said:

The MWO one is still undersized... they'd make it almost the size of the Atlas...

MWO has, thus far, generally underscaled its light 'Mechs relative to the other weight classes (which are quite well in line with each other).

So, a MWO Hollander would probably be the size of the MWO Firestarter (which wouldn't be a bad thing, except that the MWO Firestarter is, itself, underscaled ).

[Metus regem]

Strum Wealh, on 30 March 2015 - 12:09 PM, said:

MWO has, thus far, generally underscaled its light 'Mechs relative to the other weight classes (which are quite well in line with each other).

So, a MWO Hollander would probably be the size of the MWO Firestarter (which wouldn't be a bad thing, except that the MWO Firestarter is, itself, underscaled ).

I think they have the lights about the right size actually.... the poor mediums like the Centurion is much larger than it should be, as is the Catapult... and let us not even talk of the poor Nova... MWO has a history of making the mechs larger than they should be, I think the MWO Atlas is around 18m tall or some such nonsense, it should be around12m, the Banshee is one of the tallest in Lore at around 14m....

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 30 March 2015 - 12:09 PM, said:

MWO has, thus far, generally underscaled its light 'Mechs relative to the other weight classes (which are quite well in line with each other).

So, a MWO Hollander would probably be the size of the MWO Firestarter (which wouldn't be a bad thing, except that the MWO Firestarter is, itself, underscaled ).

I was just trying to size is about the same as the Adder. And give it a FS9 class GR.

Metus regem, on 30 March 2015 - 12:13 PM, said:

I think they have the lights about the right size actually.... the poor mediums like the Centurion is much larger than it should be, as is the Catapult... and let us not even talk of the poor Nova... MWO has a history of making the mechs larger than they should be, I think the MWO Atlas is around 18m tall or some such nonsense, it should be around12m, the Banshee is one of the tallest in Lore at around 14m....

Well, you note he said "relative to other weight classes".

[CTsai]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 March 2015 - 07:12 AM, said:

PGI PLZ

[Lily from animove]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 March 2015 - 07:12 AM, said:

...........So that when the normalization pass inevitably comes,we can end up with decent looking guns instead of these pathetic itty bitty things they keep ruining all your awesome designs with?

(It's called the art of politics: Start from an extremely exaggerated position, so that when you "concede" and meet in the middle, you really end up getting exactly what you wanted in the first place)

My Jagermech, K2 and Centurions all beg if of you.





My Awesome has been hiding in the closet, scared that if PGI notices it, it'll end up looking like this:


seriously, PGI.

Be kind, rewind, and think before you drink.....our mechs are suffering, and shamed.



stop and remember when they were beautiful, please?


A glimpse of things to come?

look t the thors or hellbrinegrs arms, they are quite big, why can't the jager have something like that on the side of its shoulders? that would look so much more better.

Quxudica, on 29 March 2015 - 07:45 AM, said:

Yeah and you could do it that way for immersions sake I guess. That said, I know we are talking about fictional scifi tanks here, but I don't really buy for a second that a Spider could function like that. It makes more sense to me that oversized weapons would require smaller mechs specifically built to carry them like the Hunchback or the Hollander. It's also more interesting to me too, it helps define the roles of the various chassis. Vehicles of war are always designed with their role in mind, it's why they look the way they do. Some can fill multiple roles thanks to variants, but you don't see a Bradly sporting an M1A1's canon because it wasn't built to be a Main Battle Tank.

thats why sized hardpoints would have to exist to prevent this weird abominations.

[Kassatsu]

Quxudica, on 29 March 2015 - 07:30 AM, said:

Weapons really should not scale at all. -snip-

I agree. Locusts should become an ER PPC on legs and barely be able to maintain proper balance when equipping one... Oh wait, that's after knockdowns come back and they make an entirely new physics simulation for every single mech in the game to calculate things like balance, knockdowns, collision damage etc.

[Dino Might]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 March 2015 - 07:55 AM, said:

Oh my goodness do I want that Locust on the right.

I am all in for NOT scaling weapons. A PPC should be just as big on any mech. And make it look decently big on the larger mechs. That means you get Locust #3 up there, which is exactly as it should be! For the love of all that is MWO, PLEASE DO THIS! I would drive that thing with a steering wheel and gas pedal and have the time of my life!

To any who think I am being sarcastic, you do not know me well - I am dead serious about the above. This needs to happen, and it needs to happen now.

If worried about balance, well, I can just say that a light mech carrying a massive weapon should have the associated hitbox drawbacks. It only makes sense. Deal with it. Or in my case, embrace possibly the best looking thing since the twin AC 2 Pirate's Bane.

Just see that Bishop already addressed this:

Bishop Steiner, on 30 March 2015 - 09:27 AM, said:

Don't care. You carry a BFG, you should have to carry an easily identifiable BFG hitbox, too.

AGREE 100%!

Edited by Dino Might, 30 March 2015 - 01:44 PM.

[CocoaJin]

I don't subscribe to the idea that tonnage should equate to a linear increase in size. Tonnage, or more accurately tonnage limits, for mechs is a description of carriage capacity, payload, not mech volume or empty operation weight.

A mech is basically a walking weapons scaffold, and it's tonnage rating is based on its capacity to attach and support the weight of systems, weapons and armor plates. This scaffolding(we call it structure) can be designed to handle more tonnage than another chassis without necessarily requiring a linear increase in the mech's size. By the time you run the various common components of general mech systems and then hang the armor plated on, you'd fine that an Assault mech can easily be of the same approximate size of a heavy, while having the ability to carry more weight.

Extra tonnage capacity can be achieved by strengthening the structure through the use of denser construction material, less weight saving techniques, etc...none of which necessarily requires a significant increase in size or volume/foot-print to achieve the desired results.

Case in point, I fly one plane that is 12,500lbs certified max weight(it can actually go up to 14,000lbs under certain operations)@43ft x 54ft, I fly another aircraft that has a 18,000lbs max operating weight@49ft x 40ft...that's almost 30% more carriage, for little to no significant difference in aircraft sizes...the nearly 30% heavier aircraft is actually the smaller aircraft! but with stronger structure for higher operating weights.

[Bishop Steiner]

CocoaJin, on 30 March 2015 - 02:19 PM, said:

I don't subscribe to the idea that tonnage should equate to a linear increase in size. Tonnage, or more accurately tonnage limits, for mechs is a description of carriage capacity, payload, not mech volume or empty operation weight.

A mech is basically a walking weapons scaffold, and it's tonnage rating is based on its capacity to attach and support the weight of systems, weapons and armor plates. This scaffolding(we call it structure) can be designed to handle more tonnage than another chassis without necessarily requiring a linear increase in the mech's size. By the time you run the various common components of general mech systems and then hang the armor plated on, you'd fine that an Assault mech can easily be of the same approximate size of a heavy, while having the ability to carry more weight.

Extra tonnage capacity can be achieved by strengthening the structure through the use of denser construction material, less weight saving techniques, etc...none of which necessarily requires a significant increase in size or volume/foot-print to achieve the desired results.

Case in point, I fly one plane that is 12,500lbs certified max weight(it can actually go up to 14,000lbs under certain operations)@43ft x 54ft, I fly another aircraft that has a 18,000lbs max operating weight@49ft x 40ft...that's almost 30% more carriage, for little to no significant difference in aircraft sizes...the nearly 30% heavier aircraft is actually the smaller aircraft! but with stronger structure for higher operating weights.

except mechs don't carry external payload.

Also, note, a 120mm rhinemental strapped onto a M1A1 abrams, or one strapped onto a Navy Seal Dune Buggy-....the one on the Dune Buggy doesn't magically shrink because it's on a smaller chassis.

And the weapons are what this post is talking about, not mech scale. There are other posts for that, so please stop trying to filibust this one.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 30 March 2015 - 02:25 PM.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 March 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

except mechs don't carry external payload.

Also, note, a 120mm rhinemental strapped onto a M1A1 abrams, or one strapped onto a Navy Seal Dune Buggy-....the one on the Dune Buggy doesn't magically shrink because it's on a smaller chassis.

And the weapons are what this post is talking about, not mech scale. There are other posts for that, so please stop trying to filibust this one.

Sure looks like "external cargo" in that Atlas' right hand...

[Virgil Greyson]

Metus regem, on 30 March 2015 - 02:30 PM, said:

Sure looks like "external cargo" in that Atlas' right hand...

Melee weapons in MWO, a pipe dream.

[Metus regem]

Virgil Greyson, on 30 March 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

Melee weapons in MWO, a pipe dream.

Nice, now how many puns can we make of this?

[CocoaJin]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 March 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

except mechs don't carry external payload.

Also, note, a 120mm rhinemental strapped onto a M1A1 abrams, or one strapped onto a Navy Seal Dune Buggy-....the one on the Dune Buggy doesn't magically shrink because it's on a smaller chassis.

And the weapons are what this post is talking about, not mech scale. There are other posts for that, so please stop trying to filibust this one.

Correct, we don't carry external payloads either.

But as we know, BT classes of weapon(ML, PPC, AC5s, etc) don't have a standardized design spec. So one could see how an AC5 on a small mech could be smaller than the same class weapon on a larger mech...it doesn't have to be, but the engineers likely see the benefit in minimizing moments due to weight displaced away from the mech's center of gravity. So for a smaller mech, a smaller caliber, short nosed AC5 that fires more rounds per burst would be preferred over a larger caliber AC5 on a larger mech, firing fewer rounds per burst...but they still have AC5s.

[Bishop Steiner]

CocoaJin, on 30 March 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

Correct, we don't carry external payloads either.

But as we know, BT classes of weapon(ML, PPC, AC5s, etc) don't have a standardized design spec. So one could see how an AC5 on a small mech could be smaller than the same class weapon on a larger mech...it doesn't have to be, but the engineers likely see the benefit in minimizing moments due to weight displaced away from the mech's center of gravity. So for a smaller mech, a smaller caliber, short nosed AC5 that fires more rounds per burst would be preferred over a larger caliber AC5 on a larger mech, firing fewer rounds per burst...but they still have AC5s.

8 ton gun is still an 8 ton gun, bro.

[CocoaJin]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 March 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:

8 ton gun is still an 8 ton gun, bro.

That's true, but that tonnage doesn't have to be all in the barrel. For a multi-shot AC, a good chunk of the weight can be in the loading mechanisms, ammunition transfer systems, etc...much of which is internal to the mech.

[MoonfireSpam]

Hmm not fully sold on Gundam weapons, transforming Jet-Mechs Macross style however......

[Mavairo]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 March 2015 - 09:15 AM, said:

Whiny players with Legacy Computers not understanding why the game was running on their Pentiums and 10 year old Soyo Pro Dragons. Supposedly they were withholding their "vast disposable income" from MWO because of it...though one would have to ask, if they had so much disposable income..why were they running Piece of Crap Legacy rigs, still?

The hilarity is MWO was one of the big reasons I upgraded my rig to the 6 core monstrosity it is now.

And about the same time..shortly after PGI nerfed MWO.

People should understand that PCs are not consoles. Unlike consoles, the pc evolves and is upgradable. And to have games play as good or better than consoles...especially games with insane fidelity..unlike the pap that's pushed on consoles that requires more pc horsepower.

I wonder if the Weeny Guns are in part an effort on the part of PGI to lessen the load. Less pixels on the screen with Weeny Guns™ after all.

Bishop Steiner, on 29 March 2015 - 07:55 AM, said:

DO WANT THE LOCUST ON THE RIGHT

[Destructicus]

bump for responsE
do want

[CocoaJin]

You gonna pick up the financial short-fall due to a decrease in player population a higher system req would cause? It's not like people saw MWO was coming out and purchased low spec rigs in anticipation. PGI looked at their demographics and determined where their prospective customer base resided in terms of system specs, then catered the game to accommodate them.

It's really a simple matter of economics...some people have to worry about that stuff...no, most people have to worry about that stuff. The game is first and foremost a business venture...if it don't make dollars, it dont make sense. I mean really, you'd have to be totally self absorbed to not see and understand the reasoning behind easing system spec requirements. It's good for the business, it's good for the health and size of the larger community and fan base.

[Destructicus]

CocoaJin, on 30 March 2015 - 09:09 PM, said:

You gonna pick up the financial short-fall due to a decrease in player population a higher system req would cause? It's not like people saw MWO was coming out and purchased low spec rigs in anticipation. PGI looked at their demographics and determined where their prospective customer base resided in terms of system specs, then catered the game to accommodate them.

It's really a simple matter of economics...some people have to worry about that stuff...no, most people have to worry about that stuff. The game is first and foremost a business venture...if it don't make dollars, it dont make sense. I mean really, you'd have to be totally self absorbed to not see and understand the reasoning behind easing system spec requirements. It's good for the business, it's good for the health and size of the larger community and fan base.

it's not about high spec machines, it's about mechs not looking ridiculous
congratulations on missing the point entirely.