34 replies to this topic

[Xetelian]

Mechs are much too large.

Mediums are the worst offenders but heavies are a close second.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Khobai, on 21 May 2015 - 03:44 PM, said:

It isnt exactly a secret that the mechs are scaled poorly...

You have mediums like the Trebuchet that are as tall as Awesomes.



Height is actually the worst dimensional attribute for a mech to have. Because height makes you easier to hit from every direction. Front, back, AND sides.

Thats why tall mediums like the Trebuchet just dont work.

You are ALMOST right, the scale on Mechs is off, indeed. However, you are incorrect in that the size of a Mech has nothing to do with it's CLASS. Locusts are as tall a Catapults, Commandos should hit an Atlas at the shoulder, not the crotch. Tonnage is not a value determined by height in Mechs any more than it is in human beings. I know people who are literally 6 inches shorter than I am and who have 100 pounds of weight on me. Funny, but YOUR logic says they should be much taller than I am, and that's not how reality works nor how Mechs worked in TT. They were an average of 11m tall, varied between 9 and 16 meters, with some of the shortest being higher tonnage and some of the tallest being low tonnage, most Lights are actually 12m tall btw, original FASA and CBT heights when you can find them.

Might have missed it, but we put the same SIZE engines in many Mechs from Light to Assault class, and with the scaling MWO has, that would be impossible due to the size differences. Mass and Size are NOT tied together, anyone who's taken at least a high school level science class should be fully aware of this fact. I would have to surmise that many of you have either failed such a course OR aren't old enough to take one.

[Lyoto Machida]

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 May 2015 - 01:10 PM, said:

You are ALMOST right, the scale on Mechs is off, indeed. However, you are incorrect in that the size of a Mech has nothing to do with it's CLASS. Locusts are as tall a Catapults, Commandos should hit an Atlas at the shoulder, not the crotch. Tonnage is not a value determined by height in Mechs any more than it is in human beings. I know people who are literally 6 inches shorter than I am and who have 100 pounds of weight on me. Funny, but YOUR logic says they should be much taller than I am, and that's not how reality works nor how Mechs worked in TT. They were an average of 11m tall, varied between 9 and 16 meters, with some of the shortest being higher tonnage and some of the tallest being low tonnage, most Lights are actually 12m tall btw, original FASA and CBT heights when you can find them.

Might have missed it, but we put the same SIZE engines in many Mechs from Light to Assault class, and with the scaling MWO has, that would be impossible due to the size differences. Mass and Size are NOT tied together, anyone who's taken at least a high school level science class should be fully aware of this fact. I would have to surmise that many of you have either failed such a course OR aren't old enough to take one.

Shots fired!



Btw...can anyone estimate the volume of the guy above?

[Shredhead]

TheCobra, on 22 May 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

Comparing a MBT to an APC doesn't make sense. One is a troop transport with a lot of hollow space for, you know.... transporting troops. Your analogy is the same as comparing an atlas to a dropship.

Oh really? The Stingray Light Tank,

the M551 Light Tank

and the Merkava would have a word with you.

[FupDup]

[CocoaJin]

The QuickDraw doesn't suck...it rocks harder than a geriatric on speed!

Lastly, size and tonnage aren't linear. I'm flying a plane today which has a max take-off weight almost 3 tons heavier than my other aircraft...but is roughly 70% the size of the lighter aircraft. Yes, it's smaller in all dimensions, including cabin space/volume, but is almost 50% heavier.

Only a person with rudimentary understanding of the natural world would assume weight and size/volume was linear.

Did it ever occur to anyone that the similar height of many mechs was due to some perceived benefit in height. That there was rough height that was deemed best for combat effectiveness...that having a medium or large mech that was short was a liability in both visibility, target acquisition and engagement range for LoS weapons on a battlefield with variable obstructions and terrain? That the width of mechs was based on function over form, because you needed enough clearance to mount weapons and have them clear the mech's body when torso twisting and moving the arms to aim and to move across the battlefield?

If you are going to mount bulging weapons on an arm that hangs waist height, you have to move the arms out laterally for clearance...it's why guys with large arms walk the way they do...but then again, a good chunk of you guys rarely lifted your overhanging guts, let alone some weights to know that.

In many cases, some of the increased volume is required my the game modelers and animators to prevent clipping...something the "bendy tube for joint" animators in the books didn't have to worry about.

Edited by CocoaJin, 22 May 2015 - 02:15 PM.

[Jonathan Paine]

I really want mechs resized, but how about we use actual formulas for area and volume?
http://math2.org/mat...y/areasvols.htm
and
http://www.science.co.il/Formula.asp

[VirtualRiot]

Jonathan Paine, on 22 May 2015 - 02:00 PM, said:

I really want mechs resized, but how about we use actual formulas for area and volume?
http://math2.org/mat...y/areasvols.htm
and
http://www.science.co.il/Formula.asp

And also to those posting links the forum posts about mech scale that I have already looked at many times.

The purpose of this was to examine the approximate density of two mechs, one that was considered very good, and one that was considered very bad. Nothing more, nothing less. Not height, scale, width, hitboxes, hardpoints etc. etc.

Also the reason I used a pixel count for measurement instead of an "actual formula" is that mechs are by no means perfect shapes, so the only realistic way to calculate a mechs volume would be to use liquid displacement, which obviously I do not have access to. You need volume and mass to calculate density, that is why I chose this method.

Edited by VirtualRiot, 22 May 2015 - 02:12 PM.

[CocoaJin]

VirtualRiot, on 22 May 2015 - 02:11 PM, said:

And also to those posting links the forum posts about mech scale that I have already looked at many times.

The purpose of this was to examine the approximate density of two mechs, one that was considered very good, and one that was considered very bad. Nothing more, nothing less. Not height, scale, width, hitboxes, hardpoints etc. etc.

Also the reason I used a pixel count for measurement instead of an "actual formula" is that mechs are by no means perfect shapes, so the only realistic way to calculate a mechs volume would be to use liquid displacement, which obviously I do not have access to. You need volume and mass to calculate density, that is why I chose this method.

Well if there a basic window of volume that most mechs would be built within, it would only make sense that the mech that's heavier has the advantage...the mech's weight is basically an indication of weapons and armor payload potential. The mech that can stuff more weapons and armor on its chassis would hold some advantage, especially if there was no requirement that the extra payload require a significantly large surface area to expose to the enemy.

The mech's volume isn't an indicator of its max tonnage, it's max tonnage is based on the construction of its endoskeleton. But to gain a 20% increase in tonnage doesn't require a 20% increase in skeletal size. You can gain that extra strength through alloys and fabrication techniques(like fewer weight saving cut-outs, thicker framing, etc)...nothing that necessarily requires a significant increase in the volume, and especially the height, of the mech with respect to hanging weapons, armor plates and internal systems on to that heavier skeletal frame.

Edited by CocoaJin, 22 May 2015 - 08:32 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Lyoto Machida, on 22 May 2015 - 01:31 PM, said:

Shots fired!



Btw...can anyone estimate the volume of the guy above?

Volume, I'd say probably 120 db, not sure what he's firing...oh, HIS volume..no idea, no references for his size, that could be a 1911A .45 he's firing or a .22 Berreta for all I can tell Can't even venture a guess as to his mass, lack of jiggling fat could be due to lots of muscle, which has more mass, or it could indicate that gun IS a .22, so...*shrug*

[Khobai]

Quote

However, you are incorrect in that the size of a Mech has nothing to do with it's CLASS

No im correct

the size of a mech should have everything to do with its class

[Juodas Varnas]

If Quickdraw was down-sized and had his Movement Archetype changed from Large (like Stalker, Victor, Orion, Awesome) to Medium (Dragon, Jagermech, Thunderbolt) and it'd be PERFECT.

But you know - PGI gives 0 *****.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 23 May 2015 - 11:23 AM.

[anonymous161]

Ghost_19Hz, on 21 May 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

This is brought up so often and so many people agree on it that its astonishing this is not on PGI's "to do list".

pgi is not a very talented or competent company...

[Ghost_19Hz]

All the comparisons to real life and lore are fine and interesting, but this is about game balance.

[Wintersdark]

Ghost_19Hz, on 23 May 2015 - 12:04 PM, said:

All the comparisons to real life and lore are fine and interesting, but this is about game balance.

Except it's not. Mech size and shape critically impacts game balance, but the scale of mechs is 100% PGI's Rule Of Cool, not a consideration of balance at all.

With that said, mechs aren't going to be rescaled. They're not.