61 replies to this topic

[627]

dragon...meh...

SHOW ME THE CATAPULT! This is killing me what they'll do to it...

[Clownwarlord]

627, on 04 March 2016 - 12:18 AM, said:

dragon...meh...

SHOW ME THE CATAPULT! This is killing me what they'll do to it...

The dragon next to the atlas. Yeah it will be bigger than that.

[Gorgeous Randy Flamethrower]

FupDup, on 03 March 2016 - 04:41 PM, said:

Is it just me, or did they actually leave the right arm as being the same size while changing the rest of the body around it?

i thought the same thing!

its kinda looks bigger now!

[Nebuchadnezzar2]

Somehow im afraid this dragon rescale will only make it hit the dirt more while not getting meaningful buff to its survivability

It should be leaner and less wide to be more survivable, this overall reduction does not sufficiently provide that

[Wolfways]

Kyynele, on 03 March 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

Holy crap! Unlike the Atlas, that Dragon actually does look like a scary assault mech

[TexAce]

Whatever they took as a metric, it wasnt the Hunchback. Since by their math, the hunchback needs to get bigger.
And the hunchback was known for being the best size-to-ton-ratio in the game and accepted as the best base to resize all mechs.

[Rushin Roulette]

Tennex, on 03 March 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

My man would be exploading out of the cockpit if this mech was any smaller

Thats no problem at all. We just need a new pilot model for the smaller mechs;

[0bsidion]

Kyynele, on 03 March 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

I found another leaked rescale picture:



Finally, I might have a chance to hit those fast ********. GG PGI.

This made me literally lol. Glad I wasn't drinking my coffee at the time.

[xe N on]

Tennex, on 03 March 2016 - 08:03 PM, said:

I'm just confused about what numbers they're using for their scale... It should be a really simple thing with y = mx + b
where y = volume, x = tonnage... where if x = 20 y = whatever volume the locust is.

After your science, zero mass would have some sort of volume. That would be physically impossible (beside in some abstract physical theorems).

Russ wrote on twitter, they used a density normalization. He didn't wrote which reference they were using.

But apparently they didn't use the locust as reference.

Problem with this method is, that they assume all mech are build with the same density meaning the ratio of matter having volume and free space is linear.

A Locust apparently represent the absolute minimum for free space. A 100 ton Atlas the maximum. This also means if there is lets say 2 m³ of free space for an locust (e.g. used as cockpit) there are 10 m³ of space for an Atlas.

However, if you voluntary add space (because the pilot need cabin, a toilet, a cooking place, a living room for watching trideos) the average density would decrease. On the other hand, why all that luxury? Simply give an Atlas pilot the same space as the locust one. This would make the Atlas more denser.

PS: Edited for more clearer explanation what I mean.

Edited by xe N on, 04 March 2016 - 06:25 AM.

[Tennex]

xe N on, on 04 March 2016 - 06:01 AM, said:

After your science, zero mass would have some sort of volume. That would be physically impossible (beside in some abstract physical theorems).

Russ wrote on twitter, they used a density normalization. He didn't wrote which reference they were using.

However, using this method show some problems with lore. The fact that the locust can be in fact nearly not scaled down implies, that larger mech are not constructed as dense as a locust, but provide in relation more space.

Fitting into a locust some sort of sleeping cabin, toilet, storage, kitchen or else seem to be impossible. However, why should other larger mechs don't provide this type of additional room space.

Yeah ur right, but having a Y intercept makes the scale much more adjustable, ur able to fine tune exactly the volume interspersed between the 5 ton catagories.

Plus the actual tonnage values used in games are iffy. Assuming 0 tonns is actualy 0 tonns in this game, is assuming that 20 tons is actually 20 tons,which we know is not true. The real 0 tons will just be whatever the X intercept is where x tonnage = 0 volume leaving the fake ingame nomenclature of 0 tons with some volume

Edited by Tennex, 04 March 2016 - 06:24 AM.

[xe N on]

Tennex, on 04 March 2016 - 06:17 AM, said:

Yeah ur right, but having a Y intercept makes the scale much more adjustable, ur able to fine tune exactly the volume interspersed between the 5 ton catagories.

Plus the actual tonnage values used in games are iffy. Assuming 0 tonns is actualy 0 tonns in this game, is assuming that 20 tons is actually 20 tons,which we know is not true. The real 0 tons will just be whatever the X intercept is where x tonnage = 0 volume leaving the fake ingame nomenclature of 0 tons with some volume

The only reason for doing this would be trying to adapt the Volume to the lore size. In BT lore, light mechs are not that small as in MWO. Otherwise a Locust would be much more like a battle armor or Anime mecha sized. Apperently, in BT, the light mechs have more free space than an average MWO mech.

Edited by xe N on, 04 March 2016 - 06:35 AM.

[BigBenn]

I hope to see PGI remodel that right arm while they're at it. That thing, along with the Centurion's right arm are as fugly as they come. Also, I KNOW that PGI can do better with the CT missile bay graphics on the Dragon as well. It almost appears that PGI let the new guy, as in the 10yo just starting with paintshop, draw up the graphics.

With the fine looking mechs PGI has released as of late.... it is hard to settle for those fugly right arms. Hop to it, PGI!

[FupDup]

Rushin Roulette, on 04 March 2016 - 03:30 AM, said:

Thats no problem at all. We just need a new pilot model for the smaller mechs;

The people who use those kinds of mechs are so crazy that this new pilot skin would be more fitting than the current one.

[Lily from animove]

So the hangar gate is now only a broad side of a barn.

ask yourself guys, does it really solve the issue if the dragon? The new dragon will only be "harder" to hit you if have bad aim. but any medicore aimign palyer will still not have any troubles.

So the rescale is just ONE thing of a few that the Dragon needs to be more balanced.

[Malleus011]

Yep. MWO scaling!

[cazidin]

Malleus011, on 04 March 2016 - 09:46 AM, said:

Yep. MWO scaling!

Shouldn't there be a mighty Urbie standing taller than and infront of the Atlas?

[FupDup]

cazidin, on 04 March 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

Shouldn't there be a mighty Urbie standing taller than and infront of the Atlas?

No, but there should be a Trebuchet standing gargantuan over all of them, like this old meme:



Or maybe the giant Shadow Hawk:




There was another one that had a Shadow Hawk in Frozen City, getting shot in the leg by a teeny tiny Stalker, but I can't find that image.

Edited by FupDup, 04 March 2016 - 10:17 AM.

[DarkBazerker]

With both the Fang and 1N dragon being still, my top mech based on numbers. I feel like Im qualified, to point a few things out. The biggest problem with the dragons is how easy it is to shoot off the side torsos. This is a big problem because, in order to buld any reasonable build you must include an xl engine in the build. The Flame is special in the since it doesn't suffer from this fate. Never the less, an increase in size would only further the problem, so I hope they are actually down sizing the mech instead.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Tennex, on 03 March 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

So... it's still all CT?

Yeah no... Dragon needed a remodel not a resize. However it is still one of the coolest looking mechs in mwo.

[Barantor]

Maybe with these rescales they will finally put in the Grand Dragon variants of the dragon. Energy points in each torso and the arms would help out the mech.

DRG-1G
DRG-5K
DRG-5K-DC

Could be the variants, or just drop the DC and add the two to the existing dragon lineup. Could add a hero mech version too.