15 replies to this topic

[ShinobiHunter]

I was pondering the re-scale that's due to come and had a few thoughts I wanted to share with you all. Obviously, this re-sizing will affect some mechs more than others (see Nova), but it sounds like most mechs are getting adjusted to some degree.

1) Every mech that gets shrunk becomes harder to hit, effectively buffing that mech.
2) Time-to-kill goes up across the board due to mechs being harder to hit
3) This will be an indirect (albeit small) nerf to long range weapons. Smaller targets get even harder to hit at range.
4) Lasers get a nerf due to damage spread. Smaller components mean it's more difficult to maintain a steady beam.
5) Point 4 hits clan lasers worse than Spheriod.
6) Also nerfs missiles and Clan ballistics due to spread. I really don't know how much this will hurt, but I imagine it will be felt to some degree.

What are your thoughts?

[El Bandito]

TBF, the resized mechs are too small of a minority to matter much. Sure, certain chassis such as Nova and Quickdraw will be more popular in general (buff the damn MGs, PGI), but mechs such as Dragon and Awesome will still be quirk-bound.

Edited by El Bandito, 11 February 2016 - 07:32 PM.

[FupDup]

El Bandito, on 11 February 2016 - 07:29 PM, said:

TBF, the resided mechs are too small of a minority to matter much. Sure, certain chassis such as the Nova will be more popular (buff the damn MGs, PGI), but mech such as the Dragon and Awesome will still be quirk-bound.

Apparently Russ thinks the Dire Wolf is too big. Lol...

I'm sure your Dakka Whale is okay with this though.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 11 February 2016 - 07:31 PM, said:

Apparently Russ thinks the Dire Wolf is too big. Lol...

I'm sure your Dakka Whale is okay with this though.

It may need to become a 100-ton (old) Stalker at this rate...

No idea what the Stalker revamp will look like.

Edited by Deathlike, 11 February 2016 - 07:32 PM.

[El Bandito]

FupDup, on 11 February 2016 - 07:31 PM, said:

Apparently Russ thinks the Dire Wolf is too big. Lol...

I'm sure your Dakka Whale is okay with this though.

Not to mention, if the TC changes go well, then the Whale has all the slots and tonnage to carry the largest of them.

Edited by El Bandito, 11 February 2016 - 07:35 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

ShinobiHunter, on 11 February 2016 - 07:00 PM, said:

I was pondering the re-scale that's due to come and had a few thoughts...

...What are your thoughts?

There is also an add-on to point 1:

While some 'Mechs will get smaller, others will be made larger.

As an example, Russ specifically mentioned that the Crab is actually too small, and could/would need to be scaled up by ~5% to bring it into line with their standardized volumetric scaling (stated at 1:53:53 to 1:54:04 of the Jan. 30th Town Hall).
IMO, the same stance would likely apply to many of the Light 'Mechs, and it is (IMO) not-unlikely that many of those would be scaled up as well, probably significantly so.

[Nauht]

El Bandito, on 11 February 2016 - 07:34 PM, said:

Not to mention, if the TC changes go well, then the Whale has all the slots and tonnage to carry the largest of them.

Not without sacrificing firepower if it's a dakka whale.

I seriously doubt a TC is worth dumping an entire weapon/ammo.

[Revis Volek]

FupDup, on 11 February 2016 - 07:31 PM, said:

Apparently Russ thinks the Dire Wolf is too big. Lol...

I'm sure your Dakka Whale is okay with this though.

He doesn't THINK it, their maths does however sounds it may or may not be (who am i to judge really) they apparently are using VOLUME to find out how to re scale. Word on Twitter is with their method almost every mech can be touched if need be.

Dunno how i feel about it, Touched sounds like it could become BAD TOUCH and some mechs might get bigger when there was no reason i fear.

Edited by Revis Volek, 11 February 2016 - 07:49 PM.

[El Bandito]

Nauht, on 11 February 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:

Not without sacrificing firepower if it's a dakka whale.

I seriously doubt a TC is worth dumping an entire weapon/ammo.

Wasn't talking about the Dakka Whale in particular, though I am entirely fine with dumping the 6th CUAC5 if the big TCs offer some sweet bonuses, since Ghost Heat and shorter burst time makes the build overheat too fast for my liking.

[Deathlike]

Strum Wealh, on 11 February 2016 - 07:41 PM, said:

There is also an add-on to point 1:

While some 'Mechs will get smaller, others will be made larger.

As an example, Russ specifically mentioned that the Crab is actually too small, and could/would need to be scaled up by ~5% to bring it into line with their standardized volumetric scaling (stated at 1:53:53 to 1:54:04 of the Jan. 30th Town Hall).
IMO, the same stance would likely apply to many of the Light 'Mechs, and it is (IMO) not-unlikely that many of those would be scaled up as well, probably significantly so.

Let's be clear on the 50 tonners... many of them are oversized (Nova, Trebuchet, arguably Centurion). The Enforcer is more or less correct, so the Crab is a bit compact.

Still, that assumes that they realize most of the 50 tonners are too big in the first place (or all of the 55 tonners not named Stormcrow).

Edited by Deathlike, 11 February 2016 - 08:04 PM.

[ShinobiHunter]

I hope they don't make lights bigger. The damned things are difficult enough to play already

[El Bandito]

Deathlike, on 11 February 2016 - 08:04 PM, said:

Still, that assumes that they realize most of the 50 tonners are too big in the first place (or all of the 55 tonners not named Stormcrow).

And all of the 60 tonners as well. Rifleman looks decent.

[Strum Wealh]

Deathlike, on 11 February 2016 - 08:04 PM, said:

Let's be clear on the 50 tonners... many of them are oversized (Nova, Trebuchet, arguably Centurion). The Enforcer is more or less correct, so the Crab is a bit compact.

Still, that assumes that they realize most of the 50 tonners are too big in the first place (or all of the 55 tonners not named Stormcrow).

It'll depend on how well the current (at the time of this writing) 'Mech models fit PGI's volumetric standard.

In the Jan. 30th Town Hall, Russ states (from 1:52:42 to 1:53:13) that they would be looking at a tolerance level of (possibly) within ±1-2% of the "correct" volume for a given weight increment, and that he expects upwards of half of the chassis then in-game (at the time, 64 chassis) needing to be rescaled.

Russ also mentions that body type would still be a factor, and will play a role in determining the final rescaled model size - so, it is (IMO) still a certainly that a relatively lanky/skinny humanoid 50-tonner like a Trebuchet will still be significantly taller than a relatively stocky/heavyset humanoid 50-tonner like a Hunchback, even if the models have exactly equal overall volumes.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 11 February 2016 - 08:30 PM.

[Deathlike]

Strum Wealh, on 11 February 2016 - 08:25 PM, said:

It'll depend on how well the current (at the time of this writing) 'Mech models fit PGI's volumetric standard.

In the Jan. 30th Town Hall, Russ states (from 1:52:42 to 1:53:13) that they would be looking at a tolerance level of within ±1-2% of the "correct" volume for a given weight increment, and that he expects upwards of half of the chassis then in-game (at the time, 64 chassis) needing to be rescaled.

Russ also mentions that body type would still be a factor, and will play a role in determining the final rescaled model size - so, it is (IMO) still a certainly that a relatively lanky/skinny humanoid 50-tonner like a Trebuchet will still be significantly taller than a relatively stocky/heavyset humanoid 50-tonner like a Hunchback, even if the models have exactly equal overall volumes.

The difference here is that the Trebuchet generally does not have good hardpoints in general. The Shadowhawk despite being pretty large has hardpoints that are far more favorable (torso mounts vs almost exclusively arm mounts on the Trebuchet). Scale is not benefiting the Trebuchet as much as it is the Shadowhawk (high torso mounts are preferable).

Front profile matters a lot more than the side profile (the side profile matters if you have large arms to shield with), hence the Stalker and to a lesser extent, the Marauder is as effective as they are for what they do.

Edited by Deathlike, 11 February 2016 - 08:31 PM.

[Alan Davion]

Deathlike, on 11 February 2016 - 08:31 PM, said:

The difference here is that the Trebuchet generally does not have good hardpoints in general. The Shadowhawk despite being pretty large has hardpoints that are far more favorable (torso mounts vs almost exclusively arm mounts on the Trebuchet). Scale is not benefiting the Trebuchet as much as it is the Shadowhawk (high torso mounts are preferable).

Front profile matters a lot more than the side profile (the side profile matters if you have large arms to shield with), hence the Stalker and to a lesser extent, the Marauder is as effective as they are for what they do.

I was going to mention the Shadow Hawk myself.

It's really quite a bit larger than it should be, especially when compared to the Crab or Centurion. Now granted it probably won't shrink a whole lot when they finally get around to it, probably around the same 5% or so like the Crab will be getting sized up.

The Marauder is another example that comes to mind. Currently it doesn't look all that much bigger than the Rifleman or Warhammer, and it's supposed to be ten tons heavier than the Rifleman... And the Rifleman looks absolutely amazing, the scale video comparing it to the Jager looked just about perfect really.

[Strum Wealh]

Alan Davion, on 11 February 2016 - 08:40 PM, said:

I was going to mention the Shadow Hawk myself.

It's really quite a bit larger than it should be, especially when compared to the Crab or Centurion. Now granted it probably won't shrink a whole lot when they finally get around to it, probably around the same 5% or so like the Crab will be getting sized up.

The Marauder is another example that comes to mind. Currently it doesn't look all that much bigger than the Rifleman or Warhammer, and it's supposed to be ten tons heavier than the Rifleman... And the Rifleman looks absolutely amazing, the scale video comparing it to the Jager looked just about perfect really.

The MAD is actually 15 tons heavier than the RFL - 75 tons, versus 60 tons.
As the MAD is 25% heavier than the RFL (75/60 = 1.25) and PGI's volumetric scaling ties 'Mech mass to model volume, the MWO MAD would have 25% (±1-2% as a "judgement-by-eye factor") more volume than the MWO RFL.

However, most of the MAD's volume is oriented horizontally, mainly in the lengthwise direction and less-so in the lateral direction; it is not very tall when compared to vertically-oriented chassis (especially those of the same weight, like the Orion and the Black Knight), but it does have a larger top-down planform.

Also, all scale-model three-dimensional objects are governed by the Square-Cube Law, such that a relatively-large change in volume actually corresponds to a rather small change in linear dimensions (e.g. overall length, overall width, overall height, limb diameter, and so on).

Quote

When an object undergoes a proportional increase in size, its new surface area is proportional to the square of the multiplier and its new volume is proportional to the cube of the multiplier.

As an example, let's say that we scaled-up the RFL by 25% by volume (e.g. 1.25x the volume of the original model) to create a "75-ton RFL" to match the 75-ton MAD.In order to increase the volume of the rescaled RFL by 25%, the multiplier for the linear dimensions would be (1.25)^(1/3) = 1.0772.
That is, the "75-ton RFL" would be 7.72% taller overall, 7.72% wider overall, 7.72% longer overall, and have limbs that are 7.72% thicker than those of the original 60-ton RFL, all of which adds-up to a 25% increase in overall volume.

So, when Russ talks about the rescaled Black Hawk being "only 82% the size of the original" or the rescaled Catapult being "only 88% of the size of the original", he's talking about a volumetric comparison rather than a comparison of the linear dimensions, where reductions to 0.82x and 0.88x of the original volumes respectively correspond to 6.40% and 4.17% reductions of the models' linear dimensions.
That is, the rescaled Black Hawk would lose roughly one-fifth of the volume of the original (oversized) model (and a roughly-twenty-percent reduction is indeed a huge change), but it would be only roughly six-and-a-half percent shorter height-wise (AND roughly six-and-a-half percent narrower from side-to-side, AND roughly six-and-a-half percent shorter length-wise, AND have limbs that are roughly six-and-a-half percent thinner, and so on and so forth).

It'd be the same thing with the Shadow Hawk - even if it lost a full quarter of its size (that is, the volume of the rescaled model is only 0.75x of the original is reduced), its height (and width, and length/depth, and limb thickness, and so on) would be reduced by "only" 9.14% (that is, "less than 10%").