168 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 March 2015 - 08:08 AM, said:

old K2 was the best looking mech in the game, by a longshot. MAybe they threw acid in it's face on purpose so people would look at the Timber Wolf. (especially since it got so chunky that it needed as little visual competition as possible)

Yup. That's why the K2 was one of my first mechs purchased, just looked so damn awesome.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 March 2015 - 07:32 AM, said:

makes more sense when it's 20-25% of the mechs mass.

Keep in mind that most of that Banshee's arm isn't even the PPC. If you remove the PPC all that disappears is the little cylindrical barrel poking out. The rest of the whole arm assembly is the same size even with no weapon installed.

If you install a Flamer in there, it's practically the same size as the PPC arm...so we should clearly make Flamers installed on every mech be the same size of that entire Banshee energy arm right?

Edited by FupDup, 29 March 2015 - 08:19 AM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 March 2015 - 08:09 AM, said:

True, though even from different manufacturers, most similar weapons are similarly sized. Some might be shorter and thicker, some long and thinner, but within reason, most 120mm tank guns are the same basic dimensions, or very close (not counting short barrel versions, which also usually weigh less)

True, MOST weapons in BTech are around the same size per type, but some, especially the ACs, vary widely, since they run from 90mm to 203mm, lots of overlap in the various brackets so an AC2 can be bigger than an AC10 and an AC5 can be as big as an AC20, or vice versa depending on how you look at it I always figured gauss and PPC/ERPPC varied as well by who made them, makes sense since they'll have different bore sizes based on what exactly went into the mechanisms behind the weapon, not to mention barrel lengths being different for the same reasons.

Personally, I think they should be scaled to the Mech, I love what you did Bishop, they should go with that. Yeah, we'll have hitboxes from hell with some of them on Light Mechs, but so what, that LOOK!

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 29 March 2015 - 08:16 AM, said:

Keep in mind that most of that Banshee's arm isn't even the PPC. If you remove the PPC all that disappears is the little cylindrical barrel poking out. The rest of the whole arm assembly is the same size even with no weapon installed.

If you install a Flamer in there, it's practically the same size as the PPC arm...so we should clearly make Flamers installed on every mech be the same size of that entire Banshee energy arm right?

I'm well aware of that. Keep in mind I maintain the housing because it's a 7 ton gun on a 20/30/25 ton mech.

And, I can't speak for you, but I don't want my BNC to look like this

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 29 March 2015 - 08:47 AM.

[Waffles 2pt0]

Signed

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 March 2015 - 08:20 AM, said:

I'm well aware of that. Keep in mind I maintain the housing because it's a 7 ton gun on a 20/30/25 ton mech.

Much like why the HBK has that huge shoulder hunch - support equipment for the BFG.

[Burktross]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 March 2015 - 08:09 AM, said:

True, though even from different manufacturers, most similar weapons are similarly sized. Some might be shorter and thicker, some long and thinner, but within reason, most 120mm tank guns are the same basic dimensions, or very close (not counting short barrel versions, which also usually weigh less)

How about PGI gives it a 100% minimum range reduction, call it a snub-nose PPC, and we'll call it even?

[stjobe]

7-ton PPC on a 20-ton Locust = 35% of total weight.
7-ton PPC on a 35-ton Panther = 20% of total weight.

AC/5+LL arm on a Jager = 8+5 = 13 tons = 20% of total weight. Both arms = 40% of total weight.

14 tons of PPC on a CPLT-K2 = 21% of total weight.

And now for the really interesting data:

Arm weight for a normal male: 5.7% of total body weight.

There's just no way our weapons should be as small as they are. Yes, they might be to scale for some bore diameter, but that's ignoring that approximately zero percent of BattleTech 'mechs had exposed barrels - in every case I can think of, the barrels are inside an armoured housing to protect them against weapons fire and make them usable as melee weapons.

Please PGI, reconsider these puny weapons.

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 29 March 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

7-ton PPC on a 20-ton Locust = 35% of total weight.
7-ton PPC on a 35-ton Panther = 20% of total weight.

AC/5+LL arm on a Jager = 8+5 = 13 tons = 20% of total weight. Both arms = 40% of total weight.

14 tons of PPC on a CPLT-K2 = 21% of total weight.

And now for the really interesting data:

Arm weight for a normal male: 5.7% of total body weight.

There's just no way our weapons should be as small as they are. Yes, they might be to scale for some bore diameter, but that's ignoring that approximately zero percent of BattleTech 'mechs had exposed barrels - in every case I can think of, the barrels are inside an armoured housing to protect them against weapons fire and make them usable as melee weapons.

Please PGI, reconsider these puny weapons.

You know why this post is worth it's weight in gold to me, dude? You are a noted Light Fanatic. And you aren't whinging about your precious hitboxes, and how even less people will run Lights. (Like some would).

Fact is, there should be a tradeoff, you wan t aBFG, it should be a Big-Freaking-Gun.

[StraferX]

Not much that I can add to the awesomeness this thread is so I'll just sign it.

I am StraferX and I approve this petition.

Thread is full of win.

Edited by StraferX, 29 March 2015 - 08:59 AM.

[SethAbercromby]

So... What about Lights like the Panter then, which didn't have a very large PPC mount in TT images. Even in Artwork, the scaling is sometimes off for rule of cool, but you have to consider with the skewed scaling in MWO, a lot of weapons are much bigger than they'd need to be on the bigger 'Mechs as well.

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 March 2015 - 08:53 AM, said:

You know why this post is worth it's weight in gold to me, dude? You are a noted Light Fanatic. And you aren't whinging about your precious hitboxes, and how even less people will run Lights. (Like some would).

"a noted Light Fanatic", eh?

Well, if I am, then let it be noted that one of the marvellous traits of the many marvellous traits of the Noted Light Fanatics is that we don't whinge about hitboxes - it's mainly the bus drivers that couldn't hit a barn from the inside that whinge about light hitboxes and the "unkillable lights".

We're not exactly unkillable if you could just learn to hit a moving target, bus driver!

(Please note: The above should be taken as firmly tongue-in-cheek. I know many bus drivers that are perfectly capable of hitting a barn from the inside).

As for weapon size, I'm firmly in the camp that the Rule of Cool trumps any "realism" arguments in a sci-fi shooter game. If you really, really have to have a realism-based arguments, remember what I said in the post above - gun housings. It's not the size of the inside of the barrel that matters, it's the size of the housing.

Another thing that bothers me with the re-scaled weaponry is that not only did the weapons lose girth, they lost length. Look at that picture of the red CN9 above - that weapon is massive, and LONG. Then look at the piddly stumps that remain once the "variable geometry" disaster hit.

It needs to be redone. Simple as that.

[Juodas Varnas]

/Signed and 100% agreed

[Choppah]

Just to throw a wrench in everything: Would the new smaller sized weapons be okay if the mechs were scaled down to their TT proportions? Anyone decent at photoshop want to give it a try?

Maybe weapon size normalization is a precursor to a change of mech scaling so mediums won't be as tall as assaults.

[Aramoro999]

Wonder wy pgi, wants those small guns so much? They know that a lot ppl are agains them.

Edited by Aramoro999, 29 March 2015 - 09:15 AM.

[stjobe]

Aramoro999, on 29 March 2015 - 09:14 AM, said:

Wonder wy pgi, wants those small guns so much? They know that a lot ppl are agains them.

It's easier. Simple as that.

Remember: Minimally Viable Product.

If it takes effort, it won't happen.

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 29 March 2015 - 09:06 AM, said:

"a noted Light Fanatic", eh?

Well, if I am, then let it be noted that one of the marvellous traits of the many marvellous traits of the Noted Light Fanatics is that we don't whinge about hitboxes - it's mainly the bus drivers that couldn't hit a barn from the inside that whinge about light hitboxes and the "unkillable lights".

We're not exactly unkillable if you could just learn to hit a moving target, bus driver!

(Please note: The above should be taken as firmly tongue-in-cheek. I know many bus drivers that are perfectly capable of hitting a barn from the inside).

As for weapon size, I'm firmly in the camp that the Rule of Cool trumps any "realism" arguments in a sci-fi shooter game. If you really, really have to have a realism-based arguments, remember what I said in the post above - gun housings. It's not the size of the inside of the barrel that matters, it's the size of the housing.

Another thing that bothers me with the re-scaled weaponry is that not only did the weapons lose girth, they lost length. Look at that picture of the red CN9 above - that weapon is massive, and LONG. Then look at the piddly stumps that remain once the "variable geometry" disaster hit.

It needs to be redone. Simple as that.

well, in fairness, there have been some Light Warriors who complain about any rescaling, and use the light % in the Light queue as an excuse for busted hitreg, etc being OK. And that if Lights were actually scaled right, hitreg was better, etc, no one woul duse lights at all.

SethAbercromby, on 29 March 2015 - 08:59 AM, said:

So... What about Lights like the Panter then, which didn't have a very large PPC mount in TT images. Even in Artwork, the scaling is sometimes off for rule of cool, but you have to consider with the skewed scaling in MWO, a lot of weapons are much bigger than they'd need to be on the bigger 'Mechs as well.

Find a consistent, happy middle ground size on all weapons, regardless of the mech. MAke the weapons scle relatively static. THEN allow a plus or minus of about 10% for rule of cool needs.

You gonn alook at the PPCs on the FS9 as are and tell me those remotely adhere to the rule of cool?

Choppah, on 29 March 2015 - 09:12 AM, said:

Just to throw a wrench in everything: Would the new smaller sized weapons be okay if the mechs were scaled down to their TT proportions? Anyone decent at photoshop want to give it a try?

Maybe weapon size normalization is a precursor to a change of mech scaling so mediums won't be as tall as assaults.

Yeah, mechs getting rescaled is NOT going to happen, sadly, this is a given. It would be nice, but no, it's just a symptom of one of my longest running and biggest gripes with PGI...modeling inconsistency.

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 March 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

well, in fairness, there have been some Light Warriors who complain about any rescaling, and use the light % in the Light queue as an excuse for busted hitreg, etc being OK. And that if Lights were actually scaled right, hitreg was better, etc, no one woul duse lights at all.

And in total fairness, there's probably been as many Medium Warriors, and Bus Drivers Heavy/Assault Warriors that have made equally stupid arguments. I see no reason to single out us light pilots as a special kind of stupid.

Well, apart from the fact that we voluntarily strap ourselves in light 'mechs and go racing around the battlefield at top speed, cackling like maniacs and firing our weapons all over the place.

But that's just being a light pilot and has nothing to do with game play arguments

Edited by stjobe, 29 March 2015 - 09:23 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 29 March 2015 - 09:22 AM, said:

And in total fairness, there's probably been as many Medium Warriors, and Bus Drivers Heavy/Assault Warriors that have made equally stupid arguments. I see no reason to single out us light pilots as a special kind of stupid.

Well, apart from the fact that we voluntarily strap ourselves in light 'mechs and go racing around the battlefield at top speed, cackling like maniacs and firing our weapons all over the place.

But that's just being a light pilot and has nothing to do with game play arguments

well, in this case, because I am using light mechs as an example, so bringing up Assault Jock stupidity would be somewhat out of context.

As for MEdiums? We are the few, the proud, the enlightened. We understand the game as it SHOULD be.
(jk....jk....keeps you panties unbunched folks!)

[ROSS-128]

stjobe, on 29 March 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

7-ton PPC on a 20-ton Locust = 35% of total weight.
7-ton PPC on a 35-ton Panther = 20% of total weight.

AC/5+LL arm on a Jager = 8+5 = 13 tons = 20% of total weight. Both arms = 40% of total weight.

14 tons of PPC on a CPLT-K2 = 21% of total weight.

And now for the really interesting data:

Arm weight for a normal male: 5.7% of total body weight.

There's just no way our weapons should be as small as they are. Yes, they might be to scale for some bore diameter, but that's ignoring that approximately zero percent of BattleTech 'mechs had exposed barrels - in every case I can think of, the barrels are inside an armoured housing to protect them against weapons fire and make them usable as melee weapons.

Please PGI, reconsider these puny weapons.

To be fair, our 'mechs internal structures (which represent their entire musculoskeletal system) are only 10% of their body weight, 5% with endo-steel. Unless we decide to do some creative accounting, and say that part of the engine's weight is the myomer fibers that it drives.

I'm sure the human musculoskeletal system is significantly more than 5% of their body weight.

Of course, that also gets into messy territory comparison-wise because counting a mounted gun as part of the total "body weight" would be like weighing me with my IOTV and M16/M4 and then calculating the gun's percentage of my "body weight". Or weighing the squad's SAW gunner with his weapons and ammo.

Though looking at it that way, technically only the internal structure is the actual mech's "body", everything else is carried equipment. Meaning a mech can carry 10 times its weight in gear, 20 times if it's running endo-steel. Impressive.

Hmm, which looking at it that way, the numbers definitely make more sense if you assume the weight of the myomer bundles is included in the engine, not the structure.