16 replies to this topic

[Hit the Deck]

I offer some options as a base:

1. Volumetric scaling with durability quirks to compensate.
2. Volumetric scaling with remodeling to compensate (every iteration has to have the same volume).
3. Volumetric scaling but any 'Mech can go +/-, say 10%, depending on how it performs.
4. Lore correct scaling like the novels and TROs say!!!!1
5. Just by feel lol.
6. Other or any combination of the above.

It's assumed that every 'Mech has the same density.

[El Bandito]

All of the above. Due to mechs' different shapes, PGI should not apply one single sizing rule.

[FupDup]

Surface area and/or visual silhouette (front and side) should have their own list options.

The caveat is that only the actual outlier mechs should be looked at for the time being, because it's the outliers that caused the community to ask for mech rescaling in the first place. For example, Nova, Catapult, Awesome, etc. We don't need to do EVERY mech because that can easily create a fustercluck of buffing mechs that are already good and/or nerfing mechs that already suck.

[Kaeb Odellas]

It will have to be a combination I think. Some mechs are simply not going to have great hitboxes due to their visual design, which they can't deviate too far from since this is still a Battletech game. There are also other factors, such as hardpoints and engine caps that also factor in.

[Impyrium]

Volumetric scaling along with remodeling the few outlying 'mechs that require the biggest changes is the best option for now.

The volume method is the most accurate way for determining size vs tonnage, instead of surface profile and relying on Alex drawing up perfect proportions and thinking you only ever fight mechs staring directly at their fronts or sides.

Scaling the mechs volumetrically is not a balancing method, so people should stop seeing it as that.

Quirks affect 'mechs significantly more than size. Leave the balancing to them.

[GreyNovember]

Volume does not sound smart.

But if we're going by VOLUME, then I'd rather the scale err on less than more.

Awesomes, by virtue of being fat in general, should probably be compensated for this by having better cooling and heat capacity than a mech it's tonnage has any right being, OR having significant durability to offset it's need to expose a large portion of it's chassis.

TL;DR: If you insist on volume, and you will admit that x mech is a terrible mech to use in this game given it's competitors, quirk it up. Quirk it generously.

[Targetloc]

Lore correct scaling, but make some parts of the mech 'hardened' so they take reduced damage (like how damage is reduced when you shoot through a destroyed section). Perfect example is Awesome vs Victor. All 80 ton mechs should have the same amount of 'vulnerable' surface area. If a mech is bigger than that, make the some of that larger area viable shielding.

This also fixes the problem with mechs with high-mounted weapons being vastly superior to mechs with low-mounted weapons.
If the hardened area of the Atlas was the head and shoulders then it's less of a disadvantage when you crest a hill and your enemy has the opportunity to shoot before you do. Center the 'normal damage' areas around the weapons so if they can shoot you for full damage, you can shoot them for full damage.

Raises the skill cap and also adds the option for some mechs with large bulky parts to be better shields/tanks. Let BAP and Targeting Computer draw a faint overlay on the vulnerable areas so new players can use BAP until they learn the sweet spots to shoot components.

Also introduces a choice. You have higher weapons so do you take that first shot that will do reduced damage to give yourself a small damage lead, or does it eat up too much of your heat cap if the low-slung mech pushes forward and fires for full damage on you once his weapons are clear.

[Cy Mitchell]

I like them to all be based on the same scale. IMO altering sizes to make some Mechs better should not happen. Not all Mechs should be balanced equally. Not all had optimum shapes. Most of them had weaknesses and flaws. If a Mech is bad because of its frontal area or configuration then so be it.

Build them to scale and let the chips fall where they may. Those that always have to have the min/Max ultimate Mech will find it and gravitate to it. I am looking forward to when the re-scale is released in June.

[Khobai]

They need to look at more than just the total volume of a mech

They also need to look at the volume of every hit location on every mech

Mechs with larger torso sections should get armor quirks to make up for it

[Sjorpha]

Volumetric but with a linear decrease in density, so the lighter a mech is the more dense it should be.

[kesmai]

Doesn't really matter as long as ALL mechs are treated according to the SAME rule.
With all mechs i mean all mechs.

[Ryllen Kriel]

Roll a 1D20 with 20 being a critically tiny mech and 1 being a critical failure. Everything in between follows a sliding scale of scorn. 50 meter tall Commando? Critical failure! 1 meter tall Direwolf, success!

[Lances107]

I would go with option four the only kicker would be terrain. I am right now a heavy mech pilot but I would love to one day run into an enemy atlas, look up, and say oh sh because of its size. Now terrain is the kicker because of the actual size of the assault mechs. They would have to raise several areas on several maps, otherwise certain assaults would stick out like a sore thumb and get pulverized. The other option is to give the assaults more armor, but not take away from their weapon tongage. Specifically in the area of head and center torso. Obviously actuators will have to be scaled to the new actual size.

This is where it comes down to one thing. What is this game? Another clone of many failures where you say screw the IP, and the fallout kills your game. Is this a game called mechwarrior online, and you stick to the mechwarrior universe like glue, unless your talking about small stuff that just would not work. By small stuff like disabling someones engine with a gauss, good example I picked up from a last town hall. To me this is no small matter if they scale for balance and not actual mech sizes then to me this game looses a very important immersion factor.

[Volthorne]

Sjorpha, on 02 May 2016 - 09:55 PM, said:

Volumetric but with a linear decrease in density, so the lighter a mech is the more dense it should be.

That doesn't make any sense. You'd end up with a formula that looks something like tons/m³ * tonnage * (tonngage/100¹), and as you got progressively smaller, the effect would scale exponentially. A lolcust would end up being ~4% the size of an atlas. That's not acceptable. Any value picked for scaling MUST be static across all weights.

¹ Could be any value, but Ipicked 100 as it makes most sense as 100 ton 'Mechs would have no down-scaling.

Edited by Volthorne, 03 May 2016 - 02:29 PM.

[Kangarad]

Pilot size scaling. currently a pilot inside the Kingcrab is bigger than a Raven.

[kapusta11]

Surface area adjusted by stuff like mech weight class (obviously), shield arms or lack of those, protruding head, low slung weapon mounts that require to expose entire mech, high mounted hardpoints, ability to torso twist fast enough to spread damage etc. Mean CT and ST surface area visible from say 120 or 180 degree front arc in other words.

Volume doesn't mean jack shіt. Awesome could've had very thin side profile and as the result have a volume of a light mech but with the same front profile it would still suck, it's just too big of a target to miss. If you have an arms but they are placed in a way that you can't really shield anything with them, like with Mad Dog, that's a useless excess volume. Mechs like Summoner, Hellbringer or Thunderbolt have huge legs, that's another source of excess volume.

Edited by kapusta11, 03 May 2016 - 01:12 AM.

[Dogstar]

I'd prefer if they went by the Rule of Cool and just scale to what looks the coolest.

http://tvtropes.org/...Main/RuleOfCool