37 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

In lieu of not having the right clip ("dude, I don't care")... this is my response:

Edited by Deathlike, 03 April 2015 - 01:41 PM.

[Brody319]

Soy, on 03 April 2015 - 01:40 PM, said:

That's sad Brody considering he crit the current meta in the face for over 9000.

Just noticed you weren't even here for the real heyday, so whatever. The **** you even in this thread for.

Well heres the thing, I've been on the forums for quite a while and I see these topics at least once a week if not once a day, not just new but old ones being bumped. I'm tired of them. And It really pisses me off when you have a misleading title just to draw people in for no other reason than to ***** and moan about a topic that has been brought up in 20+ other threads.

[Kinski Orlawisch]

Where is the Urbie in this thread?

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 03 April 2015 - 01:41 PM, said:

In lieu of not having the right clip ("dude, I don't care")... this is my response:

[Soy]

Brody319, on 03 April 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

Well heres the thing, I've been on the forums for quite a while and I see these topics at least once a week if not once a day, not just new but old ones being bumped. I'm tired of them. And It really pisses me off when you have a misleading title just to draw people in for no other reason than to ***** and moan about a topic that has been brought up in 20+ other threads.

The title was actually a cheeky stab at the notion that players perception of meta and what is actually potential meta in the game are not always in line with one another.

He furthers this by harking back upon old meta which he [rightly] perceives as 'better' which is subjective, which brings it full circle.

Actually pretty slick and apt commentary, if it goes overhead that's whatever.

[Brody319]

Soy, on 03 April 2015 - 01:47 PM, said:

The title was actually a cheeky stab at the notion that players perception of meta and what is actually potential meta in the game are not always in line with one another.

He furthers this by harking back upon old meta which he [rightly] perceives as 'better' which is subjective, which brings it full circle.

Actually pretty slick and apt commentary, if it goes overhead that's whatever.

No, its clearly bait to draw people in, he even said "unrelated title".

If he wants to ***** about the meta and the game, title it "Poptart meta is dead, please unnerf some things now". so people who don't give a damn can avoid it.

[Evan20k]

Brody319, on 03 April 2015 - 01:49 PM, said:

No, its clearly bait to draw people in, he even said "unrelated title".

If he wants to ***** about the meta and the game, title it "Poptart meta is dead, please unnerf some things now". so people who don't give a damn can avoid it.

Did you even read the thread?

[Soy]

[Appogee]

The thread title held such promise...

[Evan20k]

Appogee, on 03 April 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

The thread title held such promise...

Don't worry. The real deal will likely be here within a week!

[Kristov Kerensky]

I agree that JJs need to be fixed so that they actually let larger Mechs JUMP as opposed to just hovering a bit.

I do NOT want to see poptarting return however, it's always been a bogus 'tactic' and I'm glad PGI got it fixed, albeit I think they went a BIT overboard with the JJ nerfage to accomplish it. Firing while JJing isn't a TT thing, Solaris optional rules allowed it, but the negatives do tend to make it pretty much pointless, which is oft overlooked thing.

Give JJ's more thrust so that heavier Mechs can actually attain some altitude, but keep that reticule shake going for the ENTIRE time the Mech is off the ground, from take off to landing. That will allow fools to attempt to poptart and constantly miss while allowing heavier Mechs to actually make use of their JJs to get around terrain obstacles, which is rather the point of having them in the first place.

Problem solved and that old bugbear meta poptarting won't return in any real fashion.

Oh, and if you JUST want to be able to poptart, might I suggest MW2 through 4.

[Tarogato]

I'm right with the OP. So many variables have been added since the days of poptarting, I can't see why it would hurt to at least meet in the middle - bring it halfway back to the way it used to be and see what happens now that we have clans and quirks and new maps and new metas. Global jumpjet thrust can't be that hard to adjust, it's something that I think should be tweaked as needed just like is done with quirks, not completely altered and then left in the dust for over a year.

I also firmly believe that PGI needs to do something about 36m/s² gravity. It really breaks immersion and sucks the fun out of airtime. Yes, I understand that all the animations are keyframed to 36 and not variable. They NEED to be redone so that they CAN be variable, end of story.

Edited by Tarogato, 03 April 2015 - 02:04 PM.

[Koniving]

Mcgral18, on 03 April 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

We'll likely never get anything other than HoverJets™ because the gravity is set to ~4x G.

3.2x is the higher end of it.

I would love to see it.

The issue is that evidently the testers felt it was "weird" to "fall so slowly."

Of course, the underlying issue is this. The mechs are 'huge'. The larger you 'are', the 'slower' you will perceive your fall.
55 ton tank from Crysis. 55 ton Shadowhawk per 1987's scale of 9.63 meters, identical to the Dougram the original Shadowhawk is based on. MWO's scale of the Shadowhawk. Characters are 6', the same approximate height of the MWO mechwarrior with a head attached.



Considering the MWO Commando is 9.7 meters... yeah. Would it be any wonder things feel like they are falling 'slow' with that much mass?

(Edit) Added the principle example of 22 'to scale' images used to find the Shadowhawk's scale, which when 'eyeballed' between the various sizes came out to about the same size as the Dougram (9.63 meters) within a decimal point's inaccuracy.

(The Dougram)


I particularly like that version. ^
You are large, you have lots of mass, so not only is there a perceptively "slow" fall (ever seen an iron beam fall from a crane? Or watched a movie with something huge crashing into the ground? Isn't lightning fast now is it?), but there is also a slow transition into the fall due to the resistance of inertia. Have to slow down your jumpjet climb and gradually 'stop' going up before gravity's pull can start accelerating your fall.

A bit more on it here.

Edited by Koniving, 03 April 2015 - 08:13 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

And if the Urbie is UP, PGI will just nerf the clans some more, while quirking the Urbie up some more to make it competitive.

Koniving, on 03 April 2015 - 02:12 PM, said:

3.2x is the higher end of it.

I would love to see it.

The issue is that evidently the testers felt it was "weird" to "fall so slowly."

Of course, the underlying issue is this.
55 ton tank from Crysis. 55 ton Shadowhawk per 1987's scale of 9.63 meters, identical to the Dougram the original Shadowhawk is based on. MWO's scale of the Shadowhawk. Characters are 6', the same approximate height of the MWO mechwarrior with a head attached.



Considering the MWO Commando is 9.7 meters... yeah. Would it be any wonder things feel like they are falling 'slow' with that much mass?

(Edit) Added the principle example of 22 'to scale' images used to find the Shadowhawk's scale, which when 'eyeballed' between the various sizes came out to about the same size as the Dougram (9.63 meters) within a decimal point's inaccuracy.

(The Dougram)


I particularly like that version. ^

Wow, PGI got scale that wrong? THe Crysis tank and smaller mech look really good, that thing>? lolwut?

[Kristov Kerensky]

I've complained about the scale for a while now, it's WAY off.

[Jetfire]

Yeah, poptarts part of this balanced breakfast. Right....

How about no?

Kristov Kerensky, on 03 April 2015 - 04:27 PM, said:

I've complained about the scale for a while now, it's WAY off.

Now this I can agree with. Odd to think that keeping the scale consistent would be a challenge. As much as I have forgiven PGI for... I am glad they don't design cars or houses.

[Koniving]

LordKnightFandragon, on 03 April 2015 - 03:08 PM, said:

Wow, PGI got scale that wrong? THe Crysis tank and smaller mech look really good, that thing>? lolwut?

PGI never looked at "scale." Just "I want this guy to fit in that machine." PGI -- for the most part -- tries to fit each 'human' figure into each mech. The problem is some mechs weren't designed for this and the general assumption that lights must be tiny.

For example: This is the literal cockpit view you get -- or where your head would have to be to get the outer view you have -- in the Mist Lynx.


This is where you'd "fit" so to speak...


But... that's at MWO's scale which puts it at less than 9 meters tall.

Yet... Peer at the Mist Lynx in the second image. 10.6 meters tall. (Note it does scale from lowest to highest point, whether it's an antennae, arm, body part, etc.) Don't freak out just yet, the reason it is so big will become clear shortly.


In BT, you don't always get to sit down in your mech. Sometimes you laid down, sometimes you stood up, and sometimes it was damn cramped! All of MWO's cockpits are so roomy and spacious.

I don't believe they ever looked at any information on how big these things are supposed to be. (Largest mech until 3065 is the Executioner at 14.4 meters. PGI put the Catapult at 15 meters, the Jenner at 10 to 11 meters, and the Atlas at 17.6 meters). Atlas is supposed to be 13-ish meters tall. So yeah. (Fun fact the shortest medium of 50 tons or more in MWO is the Hunchback at 13.6 meters. Another fun fact: Commando and Hunchback in BT are within a decimal of a meter difference in size, with the Commando being very slim next to the fat hunchback. So 'tiny' for a medium is accurate, except the Hunchback is barely to less than 9 meters tall. More on the Hunchback later.)

Now, keep in mind if they did use Battletech's scale, a Locust is very factually taller than a Shadowhawk. But the damn thing (in the original art) is so damn skinny you'd still have a hard time hitting it. (Its got insanely long and very thin legs legs and a body that isn't all that big; like a bug on stilts. The long legs virtually necessary to reach the 'incredible' speeds of 129 kph).
Locust original design.

Japanese Locust redesign.

"Locust IIC" (Clan version). (Least that's what it is titled; I can't remember his name but I know who drew this).


I can't fathom how you would sit in the Locust IIC, but the original Locust and Japanese remake (by the exact same studio that drew the original, Studio Nue) both required the pilot to lay down.

The story here -- which I do not count this as to scale (much larger than the much more reasonable versions, would tower over an Atlas), it is simply a Locust 'inserted' into a city scape -- depicts an ejection that implies an ejection through the top. The only other example I've read depicts ejection through the transplast plating (cockpit glass, you get launched forward) which to me seems more likely given the original design (it was pre-unseen).

Still, either way, "losing an arm and a leg" on the ejection seems very, very likely to happen.

So on the Mist Lynx: Anything with endo steel and/or ferro armor would be quite a bit larger than things without. Which means we wouldn't have the choice to slap it into just any mech -- or if we did... we'd need 4 different sizes (standard, ferro armor + standard structure, standard armor + endo steel structure, ferro armor + endo steel structure combined) for any mech that could have those changed.

Basically it'd be an entirely different game. One where it'd be very clear that we couldn't have high thresholds, because we couldn't afford to have players spamming 4 medium lasers at the same time, let alone 12 ER PPCs (Direstar!) Nor would we need to, because 1x armor and non-FLD weaponry (short of Gauss Rifles and PPCs, the prior is super easy to make go boom especially with through-armor-criticals, and the latter is super hot even in an environment where SHS are viable).

(Side note, next time you look at the Hunchback. See that big drum on the left torso? Because the Hunchback canonically is so small it couldn't store its ammo inside of itself, and thus it is stored in a drum. You physically couldn't load the ammo anywhere else, or any more than two tons. Nor would you need to -- lore-wise. That said, another fun fact... On the 4SP that drum is supposed to be mounted on the rear CT instead, as the ammo is center-torso attached for the 4SP.)

Interestingly... the smaller you are, the faster a 'slow' speed would seem as demonstrated here. Barely faster than an Urbanmech, and it can almost feel like being a bat outta heck. (And yes, I noticed that just like Battletech, shooting while going 'really fast' causes me to be super inaccurate, unlike in MWO!)

(Side note: I suspect "newer" material is largely to blame for the increases in mech size.)
After FASA sold the franchise and other companies began exchanging hands...

Art began to seriously exagerate the size of the mechs. That's a 50 ton Trebuchet, which while known for being tall weren't that ginormous.

(Compare to a Hatchetman in 1992). 45 tons. In the background, Griffin, 55 tons.


Just makes for some interesting thoughts.
Oh, note the size of the infantry man next to the Timber Wolf.
He can sit in that cockpit, have a good view, etc. But it'd still be a bit cramped for him wouldn't it?
Now take MWO's Timber Wolf.
Note that it is a little over 15 meters tall. And with height comes width and length to keep the proportions kinda right.
How many people do you think you could fit in that cockpit?

Edited by Koniving, 04 April 2015 - 09:43 AM.

[Koniving]

A last little tidbit...
If they were to MWO's scale... Vehicles would mean absolutely nothing.


Left, 55 ton tank. Center, MWO scale 35 ton mech. Right, pilot.


But...
You need to fit 100 SRMs in a single ton, 120 LRMs in a single ton (this ton includes the storage bin, protective casing, racks to hold the missiles and keep them from rocking around, etc.)
SRMs / LRMs are also stated to be able to be held 68mm to 70mm in diameter (the high end is 2.76 inches wide). That SRM rack on the Panther is clearly about a foot wide (5x larger).

Battletech Infantry SRM launcher. It is said here that the SRMs are mildly able to be remote controlled on the fly, with a set of controls that imply you could 'pre-adjust' their flight path before launching to make them curve before you fire (since they are old style 'throttle'-esque controls, meaning you could position them and have it stick).

This SRM still manages "2" damage per missile but has a shorter range of slightly over 2/5ths the distance (120 meters).
From the description, each missile is fired one at a time across the typical turn (moved into final position, readied, fired, swapped, fired again and then reloaded in up to 10 seconds).

I personally pictured these.


But evidently if they were that big, you might get the full SRM accurate range out of them (due to flying faster, longer, more accurate, what-have-you).

But back to vehicles. Check it out from the arrow.


Of interesting note is that the "majority of fast mechs even today cannot break 150 kph." It's interesting, as this source book contains references to a few "3070+" technologies including Blue Shield (a literal 'Star Trek' shield that protects against PPCs). We wouldn't be having our MASC problem if PGI designed the game around not having to be faster than 150 kph in a light mech. It does include that a few mechs (using the Firemoth which has a MASC system) as a prime example, "can keep up [with a 215 kph hover tank] for short periods of time."

Everything about BT makes me depressed, knowing what could be done with the franchise but isn't being done in Mechwarrior.

The least we could hope for is some better sound design.

Edited by Koniving, 04 April 2015 - 11:48 AM.