81 replies to this topic

[Corrado]

Sarlic, on 10 October 2015 - 06:36 AM, said:

Thanks!

Interesting and something i already knew but numbers says it all.

I noticed that too. IE jenners, blackjack, jager, zeus, and exe are the chassis i do often reliabily tank and spread damage. you can parse this "geomeric quality" evaluation with quirks, pod space, hardpoint location and see on paper if a mech is good or bad.

just taking a look, the blackjack 1X is imo the most appealing. low area, good weapon / structure / mobility quirks, good mounts, 8 hardpoints... i'm not surprised i always felt comfortable in it.

on the other side, the warhawk looks crap on paper, no tight hardpoints (besides RT 2M + CT 1M of the B variant, that makes a good SRM platform) and silly ballistic quirks, yet i can do average to good games in it (can't say stellar performances but still)


I dont see the marauder, a chassis i would say tanky as hell due to geometric qualities.

Edited by Corrado, 24 May 2016 - 05:47 AM.

[zagibu]

kapusta11, on 24 May 2016 - 02:13 AM, said:

You're not accounting for the actual hitboxes, only silhouette. And even If you would there's a big difference between narrow and wide hitboxes, how fast mech can move and torso twist, whether it has high mounted hardpoints or not, how fast it accelerates and stops, does it have protruding belly or head, what about shield arms, you know, stuff that makes a difference. Do you count arm and leg surface as equally important as CT and ST area? What kind of conclusion are we supposed to make based on your data? That Crabs are too small? That's why I barely see them in game? Or that Quickdraw with high mounted hardpoints is the third worst mech? Or that BK and Archers are pretty close?

This is all true. The thread started way back before they announced a rescaling, and was an attempt to compare mech "sizes". It's certainly not directly indicative of the performance of a mech, not even of how easy it is to kill, because you are right, hitbox size and shape distribution matters much more than overall surface area, which is perfectly visible in the example of the Awesome, which is not badly "sized" according to these measurements, but still has huge problems because of terrible hitbox shaping.
I just have one question for you. What do you think about the rescaling approach PGI has chosen? Because the same critique should be applied to that as well (actually, in my opinion, normalizing the volume of mechs is even worse than what I do here, because not all axes have the same importance on the battlefield). They don't take hitbox sizes or shapes into account or any of the other parameters. What they are doing is a purely "realistic" approach to scaling, which is not really useful for a game. It might make the lore aficionados content, but it has no actual relevance in gameplay. Now, in the case of PGI, this might be good, because at least it will lead to consistent results, or put differently, there is no chance for them to **** it up.

Corrado, on 24 May 2016 - 05:45 AM, said:

I dont see the marauder, a chassis i would say tanky as hell due to geometric qualities.

Marauder is on row 23 in the updated table.