81 replies to this topic

[Spr1ggan]

Dino Might, on 18 November 2015 - 03:36 AM, said:

So....how would one fit a person in the cars and trucks and whatnot that dot the landscape? If the above scale is true, then a pilot is about the size of a SUV?

The scale in game is weird dude, iirc there were threads a while back showing the issues of fitting someone in the commando cockpit. That's why i brought it up.

*edit* Found what i was looking for.
http://imgur.com/a/bvxiD#16

Look at the Commando one, would be pretty damn cramped, no?

Edited by Spr1ggan, 18 November 2015 - 06:44 AM.

[Sarlic]

Spr1ggan, on 18 November 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

The scale in game is weird dude, iirc there were threads a while back showing the issues of fitting someone in the commando cockpit. That's why i brought it up.

Finally something i agree on you.

[Clownwarlord]

Interesting and very informative +1

[CDLord HHGD]

Would it be so hard to make their volume equal their tonnage in relative terms?

Take the Atlas and the Dire Wolf. They are 100 tons. Their volume should be equalized. They now represent the 100 percentile. A 60 ton mech would equal 60% of their volume.

[zagibu]

I'm not sure if it's a great idea to just normalize all mechs, because the size can actually be used as a balancing factor. Take the crab, for instance, a very "meh" battlemech. But the undersized profiles actually make it somewhat viable.

[Karl Streiger]

DAYLEET, on 17 November 2015 - 03:59 PM, said:

The ShadowHawk is huge and still has one of the best chassis hitbox of the InnerSphere. Numbers on papers don't mean much.

The ShadowHawk is not an issue - not primary.

As said its not a "good" analysis - but it is just another approach in showing how things are off.
Take for example the Hunchback SP....a 50t Mechs with WHOOPING 160 points of additional hitpoints....so on the average it is 33% harder to kill - so it has almost the same armor as a non HP-quirked 80t Mech.
But on the other side there is a HP quirked Zeus that have better protection - and considering armor the same size.

Or take the Catapult - same armor quirks 161 of additional HP and still its "armor" per area is the almost the same as this for the Stalker.

This game is a FPS with weapons that hit where you aim - this means armor should direct proportional to hit size.
If you are small and agile you don't need more armor as a Mech that is huge and clumsy

[zagibu]

I updated the dropbox file with the profiles of the Marauder. I found that it is slightly undersized, but "only" 1-5%, depending on if you take the mean or the median amount of pixels per adjusted ton (99.79% and 96.14% respectively). It's bigger than the Black Knight (which is a bit too small), slightly smaller than the Timberwolf (which is almost perfectly scaled) and smaller than the Orion (which is quite a bit too big).

[zagibu]

The profile pictures and updated spreadsheet is now in the zip file linked in the OP.

The Warhammer seems properly scaled. It has almost exactly the same profile surface area as the Grasshopper:



It sits at position 24/60 in the list that compares mechs by surface are of front and side profiles normalized over tonnage, and at 100.48% compared to mean and 97.20% compared to median, it seems to be pretty reasonably sized.

Let's hope now that the Catapult rescale will raise the poor mech a bit more towards the middle of that list.

[Strum Wealh]

cdlord, on 18 November 2015 - 08:26 AM, said:

Would it be so hard to make their volume equal their tonnage in relative terms?

Take the Atlas and the Dire Wolf. They are 100 tons. Their volume should be equalized. They now represent the 100 percentile. A 60 ton mech would equal 60% of their volume.

Russ indicated here and here that scaling-by-volume is exactly what they're intending to do.

[QuulDrah]

cdlord, on 18 November 2015 - 08:26 AM, said:

Would it be so hard to make their volume equal their tonnage in relative terms?

Only if they have the same density...

[zagibu]

QuulDrah, on 21 January 2016 - 08:09 AM, said:

Only if they have the same density...

I doubt their density should vary as much as it does between the Spider and the Catapult, though.

[DivineEvil]

Some extra science, derived from OP's brilliant work:

• Average Scale Ratio is the relation of each mech's front/side profile averages to the global average of all mechs combine. For example, by this plot, currently the most mediocre profile-wise mech in MWO is Shadow Hawk (1,0 ASR), tiny Locust is roughly three times smaller than that (0,31 ASR), while King Crab is only 65% larger (1,65 ASR).
  
• Linear Sample shows the perfect progression of size keeping current mechs in the same order by size with minimum scale changes, from Locust to King Crab as low/high limits respectively. If ASR is above Linear Sample line, it's oversized and vise versa. Mean mediocre mech (1,0 ASR) is Quickdraw, which means, that MWO mech scale is currently biased towards heavier mechs by 5 positions.
  
• Weight Class Average / Sample shows the same relations, but comparing average values of the whole weight classes. If WCA is higher than sample line, then the whole weight class is generally oversized, and vise versa.
  
• Estimated Scale Error is a difference between ASR and it's corresponding Linear Sample value. It's a positive/negative percentage value, estimating the extent of the average profile reduction/increase required to bring the mech to reasonable position. For example, Nova requires about 25% reduction of it's average profile to be reasonably scaled even if still remaining as heaviest of it's 50t Weight Class.

Edited by DivineEvil, 21 January 2016 - 11:24 AM.

[mogs01gt]

Karl Streiger, on 19 November 2015 - 02:51 AM, said:

The ShadowHawk is not an issue - not primary.

As said its not a "good" analysis - but it is just another approach in showing how things are off.
Take for example the Hunchback SP....a 50t Mechs with WHOOPING 160 points of additional hitpoints....so on the average it is 33% harder to kill - so it has almost the same armor as a non HP-quirked 80t Mech.
But on the other side there is a HP quirked Zeus that have better protection - and considering armor the same size.

Or take the Catapult - same armor quirks 161 of additional HP and still its "armor" per area is the almost the same as this for the Stalker.

This game is a FPS with weapons that hit where you aim - this means armor should direct proportional to hit size.
If you are small and agile you don't need more armor as a Mech that is huge and clumsy

Structure quirks do not protect hardpoints. I've been running the 4sp lately and it constantly loses hardpoints before the ST goes pop.

armor and structure isnt the same thing. Armor is way more valuable!

[zagibu]

I've updated the zip in the OP with the Rifleman's data. It's scaled like all their latest mechs, which means very close to average (99.43%) and slightly under median (96.66%). It takes position 19 of 60 in the exposed area per ton chart.

[Mech Jager]

Volume scaling should be a base equation, but you would also need to factor in speed, hitboxes, firepower and hardpoint location. You can not say X weight == X volume. Many of the worst offenders were created before clan dropped and many times their extra size balanced out their advantages ( hard to remember how good and XL friendly the catapult was)

Also as I think someone else mentioned it should probably be a curve not a straight line. The mechs at the top and bottom become easier or harder to hit more so than their straight % decrease in size.

As you get even closer to balanced the fewer mechs that sit outside the curve become even more effective because some advantage is better than none even though the weakest may be better.

Smaller in general is good just because it increases ttk without nerfing in game mechanics.

[Fox With A Shotgun]

I'm surprised that the Kit Fox is apparently undersized. Every Kit Fox pilot that I've talked to - and many people that shoot at them - thinks that they have hitboxes the size of both Americas plus China. I guess it does have a tiny side profile, but that changes when you start taping on SRM/LRM boxes.

I forgot where I put that picture, but...yeah, as a most extreme example, if you put LRM 80 on a Kit Fox (note: doesn't actually work, due to having no ammo!, the arms are quite literally bigger than the torso of the mech - because they only ever expand vertically, like gigantic paddles.

I guess another thing to consider when comparing hitboxes like this is the ratio between width and height. It's much harder to miss a tall, stick-like target if they move up and down on the y-z plane relative to the viewer, but at the same time, they're also harder to hit when running on the x-y plane relative to the viewer. This is probably the reason why all the humanoid mechs tend to be much harder to kill; aside from having better hitboxes in general to torso twist with, they present the most favourable profile for evading shots by simply moving side to side.

[zagibu]

Kitfox and Adder are only undersized compared to the average or median values calculated over the whole mech park. They are the biggest lights by quite a noticeable amount.

[MrMadguy]

Yeah, Spiders and Commandos - are two, that definitely need to be rescaled up, as long,a as other Light 'Mechs. But PGI isn't even talking about rescaling some 'Mech up - only about rescaling worst ones down. What we really need - is size/wight normalization!

Edited by MrMadguy, 29 February 2016 - 01:08 AM.

[zagibu]

MrMadguy, on 29 February 2016 - 01:00 AM, said:

Yeah, Spiders and Commandos - are two, that definitely need to be rescaled up, as long,a as other Light 'Mechs. But PGI isn't even talking about rescaling some 'Mech up - only about rescaling worst ones down. What we really need - is size/wight normalization!

Well, if they scale the oversized ones down, the undersized ones will become bigger, too, relatively speaking. You are right that the underscale of the lights is actually worse than the overscale of the heavies, but you also have to consider that lights not only lose armor, most of them also lose firepower compared to their heavier brothers. That's why I think it's okay that most lights are smaller than what they should be realistically. They basically trade in armor and firepower for speed and smaller profile.

[MrMadguy]

zagibu, on 29 February 2016 - 01:17 AM, said:

Well, if they scale the oversized ones down, the undersized ones will become bigger, too, relatively speaking. You are right that the underscale of the lights is actually worse than the overscale of the heavies, but you also have to consider that lights not only lose armor, most of them also lose firepower compared to their heavier brothers. That's why I think it's okay that most lights are smaller than what they should be realistically. They basically trade in armor and firepower for speed and smaller profile.

Some 'Mechs have more firepower, some have more armor. But both contribute towards "value" of the 'Mech: "value" - is weighted sum of firepower, armor and some other factors, like hardpoint locations. And "value" of the 'Mech is proportional to it's weight. So size should be proportional too, cuz there should be balance between offense and defense. The smaller your firepower and armor, i.e. "value" of 'Mech - the smaller should be your size to compensate it. This is just logical - weapons and armor have some kind of "density", i.e. constant weight/size value. If you want to equip more weapons and armor - your 'Mech should be bigger to fit them. If your size is way too small for your "value" - then we get OP 'Mechs, like Firestarter, Spider and Arctic Cheater.

Edited by MrMadguy, 29 February 2016 - 01:33 AM.