200 replies to this topic

[Ekyo]

side would be without legs, so that picture is not accurate.

[Gas Guzzler]

zagibu, on 07 October 2015 - 11:22 AM, said:

What for? What matters in game is front and side profile. Top profile is rarely relevant. Anyway, here you go:

Its more to show how perception can be changed by how the pixels are arranged, which yeah it is now WAY taller than a Hunchback.

I don't know, yeah its a bit smaller than a Hunchback which is probably the ideal 50-ton size, but I hardly think this is beyond reasonable, given how long the torso is. That backpack is really annoying.

[Revis Volek]

Tennex, on 07 October 2015 - 11:21 AM, said:

Rational Players: Looks at mech, says its small
Crabbies: Oh thats just the front profile, the side is long

Rational Players: Make chart incorporating side profile into calculation
Crabbies: Oh thats just the profiles, not volumes

Rational Players: Makes volume comparisons
Crabbies: Volume isn't important. Area of the mech is more important (profile)

So we have come full circle.

Well, at least lets all be happy its not massively oversized

This may have been funny if your were not the 8th person to do it in this thread.

So original...

[Livewyr]

Volume is kinda important.

[Gas Guzzler]

Livewyr, on 07 October 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

Volume is kinda important.

You're right, enlarge the Crab the same time you enlarge the Ebon Jaguar.

Seriously, I don't see it being THAT much smaller than the Hunchback. Is there numerical evidence to show the Crab's volume is significantly less than the Hunchback?

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 07 October 2015 - 12:59 PM.

[Livewyr]

Gas Guzzler, on 07 October 2015 - 12:56 PM, said:

You're right, enlarge the Crab the same time you enlarge the Ebon Jaguar.

Seriously, I don't see it being THAT much smaller than the Hunchback. Is there numerical evidence to show the Crab's volume is significantly less than the Hunchback?

Yes, yes there is.

zagibu, on 07 October 2015 - 07:39 AM, said:

Here is some data I extracted from the game models by using the NeuroMorph Toolkit addon for Blender:



As you can see, the Crab has a smaller volume than all other medium mechs, however, it's still much more voluminous than a Raven.

Spoiler

Here is the text (didn't manage to align properly):

Raven 550.5489866232 98.8096264457
Crab 758.9547283455 149.3568865063
Cicada 782.7011830193 168.9651143839
Blackjack 880.1774743373 168.7722013022
Hunchback 757.7846339652 171.7266517645

87% of the volume of the next smallest 50 tonner. (If I can math at all.)

[Gas Guzzler]

Livewyr, on 07 October 2015 - 01:10 PM, said:

Yes, yes there is.



87% of the volume of the next smallest 50 tonner. (If I can math at all.)

Wow, 13% less volume.. that is hardly showstopping. Even if it was, how do we know which components are modeled hollow and which are correctly modeled solid? I'm not convinced without knowing how he calculated these.

Even still.. all this uproar over a 13% volume inconsistency?


Also, Blackjack is the size of a Cicada! Needs to be larger amiright? And look how both the Cicada and the Blackjack are just ~2% smaller in volume than a Hunchback, yet 5-10 tons lighter. The inhumanity!!

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 07 October 2015 - 01:16 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Livewyr, on 07 October 2015 - 01:10 PM, said:

87% of the volume of the next smallest 50 tonner. (If I can math at all.)

Except, if you paid attention, you would've noticed the person who posted that said that data is invalid because it is counting overlapping meshes. Unless Ghogiel or someone else proficient with zbrush feels like doing this to all mechs the only thing we have to go off of is pixel counts of orthogonal views (which btw, the mechlab is not orthogonal).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 October 2015 - 01:19 PM.

[zagibu]

MeiSooHaityu, on 07 October 2015 - 11:27 AM, said:

You want to know why that is relevant? Because that is basically the surface area of the side of the mech just stood up instead of laying flat.

Tennex already has a good graph showing the front and side profile comparisons, and this is actually what counts, not volume, because it's what you are shooting at most of the time. Volume can be an okay approximation of those profiles, but it's actually less relevant than the profiles, because certain concave sections can detract from volume, while the profiles stay the same.

Ideally, we would have surface area seen of each hitbox from the front, the side, and the back.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 October 2015 - 01:18 PM, said:

Except, if you paid attention, you would've noticed the person who posted that said that data is invalid because it is counting overlapping meshes. Unless Ghogiel or someone else proficient with zbrush feels like doing this to all mechs the only thing we have to go off of is pixel counts of orthogonal views (which btw, the mechlab is not orthogonal).

I'm gonna edit the post so that it's clear. Also, Tennex's pixel count graph was done using an orthogonal projection, I think.

Edited by zagibu, 07 October 2015 - 01:36 PM.

[DAYLEET]

The Crabby definitely feel small if only because it's a 50tonner. It's smaller than my Cicada :/ i was behind those 2 mech yesterday, Crab and Jenner and it fits between us in size with 10 more ton than me. It boat lasers(boring but good), it has arms to soak some damage, it has JJ, it can have speed, even if the loadout is boring it's a good mech overall. They got the quirk right at least.

[Gas Guzzler]

Livewyr, on 07 October 2015 - 06:07 AM, said:

I paid money for Invasions 1, 2, and 3. Why do I get the Massive 50 tonner and you get the the 50 ton light mech?

You also got a 50-tonner sized 65-tonner. We need to fix that immediately right??

Why are you complaining, you got 3 top tier heavies, a top tier assault, a top tier medium, and a top tier light. What did R1 and R2 owners get? Any true top tier mechs yet?

zagibu, on 07 October 2015 - 01:34 PM, said:

Tennex already has a good graph showing the front and side profile comparisons, and this is actually what counts, not volume, because it's what you are shooting at most of the time. Volume can be an okay approximation of those profiles, but it's actually less relevant than the profiles, because certain concave sections can detract from volume, while the profiles stay the same.

Ideally, we would have surface area seen of each hitbox from the front, the side, and the back.



I'm gonna edit the post so that it's clear. Also, Tennex's pixel count graph was done using an orthogonal projection, I think.

Okay, so you want PGI to take the time to increase the average of front and side profiles of the Crab by a whopping 7.6% to bring it in line with the ideal 50-tonner mark? Even I would rather they take the time to fix the grossly oversized Nova, Adder, and Kit Fox.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 07 October 2015 - 01:45 PM.

[zagibu]

Ekyo, on 07 October 2015 - 11:42 AM, said:

side would be without legs, so that picture is not accurate.

What do you mean? I did the picture by moving and rotating the model parts in Blender.

Gas Guzzler, on 07 October 2015 - 01:42 PM, said:

Okay, so you want PGI to take the time to increase the average of front and side profiles of the Crab by a whopping 7.6% to bring it in line with the ideal 50-tonner mark? Even I would rather they take the time to fix the grossly oversized Nova, Adder, and Kit Fox.

No, I don't think it needs to be addressed. It's actually not that bad compared to a lot of other mechs. If PGI really started on their rescaling project, it would be one of the mechs in the last quarter of the waiting line.

But it IS small compared to other mediums. Mostly because those other mediums are too big, but the relative advantage is still there.

[Tennex]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 October 2015 - 01:18 PM, said:

Except, if you paid attention, you would've noticed the person who posted that said that data is invalid because it is counting overlapping meshes. Unless Ghogiel or someone else proficient with zbrush feels like doing this to all mechs the only thing we have to go off of is pixel counts of orthogonal views (which btw, the mechlab is not orthogonal).

the profile chart is good enough as far as im concerned. Only thing that matters is the profile you present to the enemy's weapons fire

[Speedy Plysitkos]

This thread turns into real bollocks.

[Tennex]

crab size is small for its tonnage

though it can def be argued that mediums deserve to enjoy being small for their tonnage like light mechs do

[Helsbane]

The Crab, in all variants, is an energy boat. As such, it requires no space in any of its incarnations for ammo storage (which is essentially a bunch of empty space which makes the chassis bigger). So, the Crab is fine size wise.

[zagibu]

Helsbane, on 07 October 2015 - 02:09 PM, said:

The Crab, in all variants, is an energy boat. As such, it requires no space in any of its incarnations for ammo storage (which is essentially a bunch of empty space which makes the chassis bigger). So, the Crab is fine size wise.

Not a bad argument, actually, but it doesn't seem like PGI followed it through, if you look at the Quickdraw or Nova.

[KuroNyra]

Crab size is fine.
It's the others who are way to big and it has been said countless time even before the crab was announced.

[LordBraxton]

ALL R2 mechs came with crap quirks

but they were scaled pretty well

[Quicksilver Aberration]

zagibu, on 07 October 2015 - 01:34 PM, said:

I'm gonna edit the post so that it's clear. Also, Tennex's pixel count graph was done using an orthogonal projection, I think.

Well most of them are, I'm not sure if any of the new mechs are using orthogonal though, but a majority of them are since he based them off of the renders I did .