In my mind, Russ will use the 55-ton Kintaro as the staple 55-tonner reference.
That means... preemptive Doomcrow nerf.
The Shadowhawk is less than 2% off from it's correct volume... so assume that the SH provides a good baseline for what humanoid 55-tonners will look like by volume.
What determines an ease of hitting a mech is hitbox surface not volume. In addition one hitbox may be obscured by another, like CT obscuring ST that is turned away from your opponent or massive arms protecting both CT and ST. Blackjack is pretty easy to hit as it is and has no shield arms hence it makes me wonder, just what in hell PGI are smoking cause I want some of that shіt too.
Scarecrow I know what you're thinking: "God damnit another notification because Kon edited something else." Sorry. "Take a Vsauce page" corrected to "Lets take a page from V-sauce and go on a tangent for a moment."
ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 10:31 AM, said:
Well, according to PGI, both the Atlas and Centurion models currently in the game were found to be very close to their actual tonnage. So go take a peek in the game and see if that relationship fits your particular sensibilities. It will give you a good idea of how a lot of the rest of the mechs will look after rescale.
Also, for reference, the current Nova weighs about 62 tons. Bodes well for the Mad Dog, doesn't it?
But, another thing to consider here is the relationship of volume to shape... let's reconfigure those cubes using the same volumes they currently are...
Keeping the width of each cube the same... 8.82 and 7cm respectively, but reducing the depth to 2cm for both, the larger cube will be 38.89cm tall, and the smaller cube will be 24.5cm tall. That would make the smaller cube a bit less than 2/3 the height of the larger cube at about 62%, and about 80% of the width. This is looking a lot more reasonable, right?
SO... though volumetrically the larger cube is double the smaller one, and in the most compact form the smaller one looks only about 20% smaller than the large... configured more like a mech, the smaller cube presents a target less than 60% of the size of the large one. So it's not all doom-and-gloom.
Will a 50-ton mech look exactly half as large as a 100-ton mech after a volumetric rescale? Nope. Nor should it. But let's not get crazy, it will still look a LOT smaller.
I disagree with the "close for their tonnage" that PGI states, but...
in regards to what you're saying about volume scales...
First, I need to mention some things.
The Centurion and the Shadow Hawk are comparatively the same size, when including the Centurion's fin.
Now consider the following:
In Battletech, the 50 ton Centurion is drastically taller than the 2-series of Shadowhawks, but similar in height to the 5-series of Shadowhawks. Rhetorical question: Why is that?
In MWO the Centurion is 14.7 meters, the Atlas is 17.6 (or was it 17.8) meters, and the Hunchback is 13.5 meters.
In Battletech, the Atlas is "just under 14 meters" or "A towering giant of over 13 meters." (which is why the head looks so big here as it has to be large enough to fit two people), the Hunchback is between 8 and 9 meters, the Catapult has two versions: The squat/classic at just under 9 meters tall, (the reason PGI gave the Catapult the huge body is their 15.9 meter tall monster is based on the 9 meter tall 'fat' catapult) and the stilted 11 to 12 meter tall Catapult, given much longer legs with a somewhat narrower side-to-side width but slightly longer profile (front-to-back) so that it had the height to make sure its missiles could clear large obstacles).
This "Gundam" statue is 18 meters tall.
Remember this is standing on a truck.
Height: 8.02 Meters
I realize it looks really tall but from another angle.
PGI has scaled us for Gundams, not Battlemechs.
The front "wheels" on the Tsar tank are 9 meters tall.
A thing could be quite spacious.
But lets digress. PGI says we are scaled for tonnage. So below is some actual tonnages and sizes.
Abrams M1A2 tank is 62 metric tons.
Is 2.44 meters tall, 3.66 meters wide, and 7.93 meters (hull) or 9.77 meters (gun forward) long.
Beside it is the T-90 tank at 46 metric tons.
Length: 9.63 m (31 ft 7 in) (Gun)
6.86 m (22 ft 6 in) (hull)
Width 3.78 m (12 ft 5 in)
Height 2.22 m (7 ft 3 in)
Now. Here is a 55 ton tank, some 6 foot tall humans, a Shadowhawk at Battletech's scale as drawn by first Battletech author William H. Keith Junior, and MWO's Shadowhawk.
But wait I bet you're saying, "Why is the Shadowhawk so small?"
Note it's a Shadowhawk 2D which has:
Internal: 91
Armor: 72/185
This is actually somewhat higher armored than most Shadowhawks at the time.
The Blackjack 1 has:
Internal: 75
Armor: 136/153
The average Scout mech from higher armored 20 ton Locusts and Commandos to the 40 ton Cicada is "!28" in MWO, which is 64 in Battletech.
Now the Shadowhawk 5M isn't 9.x meters tall and is instead "just under 12 meters."
Why is this? Oh right Endo steel and more than twice as much armor.
Internal: 91 (Endo-Steel)
Armor: 168/185 (2x The SHK-2D's armor would be 144.)
....Interesting, isn't it?
"But wait! Battletech scales can be pretty wonky, lights being almost 12 meters tall and mediums being 8.3 meters tall."
Well to begin with, the mechs in question are a Fire Moth at 20 tons versus a Nova at 50 tons.
The Fire Moth, 11.4 meters tall (Measures Antenaes AND Arms above the head) is in fact, in the same scale drawing, shorter than the 25 ton 10.4 meter tall Myst Lynx -- which in MWO is actually considerably shorter.
I should also further point out how freakishly skinny they are, leaving little to no room for what they need if they were short too. If you can't load it in horizontally, fill it in vertically. Which is what they did.
Besides the Myst Lynx is supposed to be bigger, because lets be honest...
What... the ****? Note the Mist Lynx in MWO is smaller than the BT Mist Lynx. Notice something wrong?
But that's PGI making "Lights as small as lights."
Anyway back to what I was saying, the Fire Moth is considerably taller because the measurements include all limbs and measures to the highest point on the entire frame.
There is a bit more to this as well.
The lengthy description of Endo Steel and Ferro Fibrous makes two very important things clear.
Endo Steel is produced by taking stronger but far too flexible material and filling it to keep it 'stable'. The end result is lighter but stronger Ferro is much the same way. In both cases it's a bundle of small sticks versus a single big stick analogy. Yes, many sticks together is harder to break and therefore stronger, it's also bigger, even if the comparison original stick was thicker.than any individual thinner stick in the bundle.
Thus: Endo steel = thicker, bulkier skeleton. (And don't give me "it takes up more space internally" because how does a skeleton implode into itself? It expands to be 'thicker'. And yes this means less space inside the mech. This also means to have room for say, the pilot and work spaces, you also need to expand outward to keep those spaces from shrinking.
Next, the armor. I suppose you can say you can have the thicker though lighter armor go 'inward', but the armor is meant to be mounted as is as an outer layer. You'd need to reduce the skeleton, or simply tack the armor on as is which is exactly what any sensible engineer would do when you can't redesign it from scratch. And thus, Ferro armor makes you bulkier.
The Fire Moth and Mist Lynx have both.
The Nova has neither, allowing for its girth and thickness to be as compact as humanly possible.
There's also other factors. The faster a mech is, the "longer its legs are usually made" so that its legs can realistically keep up the pace the engine is meant to provide. This is why mechs that are natively faster tend to be taller and almost proportionately skinnier than equally weighted mechs that aren't as fast, even when they have the same amount of armor.
A mech comparison in MWO. Ignore the "My Scale" nonsense from the image's creator.
Remember the Hunchback in MWO is 13.5 meters, the Hunchback in Battletech is about 9 meters (and noteworthy because it is "so small that it could not hold the ammunition internally" and thus had to "wear a drum to hold its 2 ammunition." The 4SP is the only Hunchback that carries the ammo in the CT and as such is the only Hunchback meant to have a CT-rear Drum to carry the 1 ton of missiles).
(Funny Fact: a Jenner is supposed to be about 10 to 11 meters tall, but has no pelvis and the shoulders host both the legs and the arms. It's profile is also supposed to be half what is shown in MWO [all that length has been added for the pelvis] and its legs are supposed to be longer and thin.)
Mist Lynx again -- this is sitting as shown in MWO (side angle)
So. Yeah. o.O;
Btw, Wolverine and a tank in Battletech.
MWO's Shadowhawk and a tank.
O.o;
Battletech wasn't so far fetched after all. Most mechs are about similar sizes so long as they had the same structure/armor in terms of overall volume. But you tack in endo and ferro, and you get 'larger' than normal mechs too. The caveat is "Add Endo or Ferro, you get bigger!" OMG a drawback for being epically powerful!
Furthermore, "OMG 1980s Battletech did some research!"
Meanwhile MWO.... I don't know what's going on here.
o.o;
In Summary: BattleTech's 1980s scales coincide with the concept of volumetric scaling with exceptions placed on Endo / Ferro, due to Endo and Ferro being 'thicker' yet 'lighter', requiring larger mechs as a result. And PGI's thought that the volumes are about right to weight... seems rather baseless. They are simply the mechs closest to the standards they set, to minimize the work needed for the rest of the mechs.
To tack on: Blackjacks are about 10 to 11 meters tall in BT. The thick "belt" they wear is actually the ammunition feed from the center-mounted single ton of ammunition they carry. The cockpit is typically mounted at the very top.
In MWO, the Blackjack is roughly the same height as the Hunchback which is 13.5 meters tall.
The MWO Vindicator towers over the Timber Wolf, which is supposed to be 12.6 meters in BT (including launchers) but is actually in excess of 16 meters tall in MWO (including launchers).
Just food for thought.
(Done editing. Sorry for so many notifications Scarecrow dude!)
Scarecrow outchea caping hard as **** for PGI's flawed implementation.
Rampage, on 30 April 2016 - 11:04 AM, said:
I am beginning to become as pessimistic (salty? Is that what you guys call it?) as some of you but I can see that Mech scaling is a huge problem in this game that needs to be addressed. As long as they pick one "right sized" Mech as a reference and then use total volume (Mass) as a steadfast metric for scaling every other Mech to the appropriate relative size then it is a fair and IMO much superior system than the hodgepodge mess that we have in game now. That will mean that every other Mech is now "right sized" too. "Right sized" may be arbitrary but as long as it is enforced consistently then it will not matter because every Mech will be based on the same frame of reference. There has to be no exceptions to the rule.
I am sure that there will be a lot of complaining when someone's favorite Mech suddenly becomes a bigger target but when is there not someone complaining in this game? I may even shed a tear or two myself but I will get over it.
Deathlike, on 30 April 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:
In my mind, Russ will use the 55-ton Kintaro as the staple 55-tonner reference.
That means... preemptive Doomcrow nerf.
Russ has explicitly stated that they aren't choosing a mech from each tonnage as "right sized" or as a "reference". They are choosing a number and scaling everything to it.
Because of volumetric scaling, most mechs that are being rescaled are actually shrinking in size. Including the vast majority of mechs the community identified as being particularly big offenders like the Nova, Catapult, Awesome, Warhawk, etc. Volumetric measurements showed the Nova was 18% off from it's real size, at 62 tons.
It just so happens that a lot of the rest of the perception certain members of the community has is flat out wrong... like with the BlackJack. You have every right to say there is a volume discrepancy between the Vindicator and BlackJack. But chosing how those two mech are normalized isn't up to us. The end result will be that 45-ton mechs will look like 45-ton mechs. Some mechs will go up, some will go down to make that happen.
But again, what is the assertion that the Blackjack is the "right" size based on? Compared to what? Certainly not compared to other mechs in its class. So, since most of the mechs you might compare the BJ to are changing in size (only a small number of mechs aren't changing), wouldn't our perception of the relative size of those mechs also change?
You are incapable of recognizing bias in this particular discussion, judging by your recent post history.
You are also assuming that all of the changes are positive. A given 'Mech getting smaller isn't necessarily good, because some of these don't need it. A lot of 'Mech problems are not due to scale but due to sub-par types and positions of hard-points or simply from having geometry that is not conducive to spreading damage (which is outside PGI's control). Like, the Warhawk? It's not actually bigger than a Stalker. From any angle, any of its components are exactly as vulnerable as a Stalker. But...it has guns that are low so it can't poke and it is therefore forced to fight out in the open where it gets wrecked. Lo-and-behold, that's also where Stalkers get wrecked. Making the WHK smaller isn't going to change anything. It still has to overexpose to shoot and it's still going to lose a ST in seconds (just like exposed Stalkers do, btw). Even the Awesome...is going to continue to suck because its weapons are low. Yup, a PPC slinger with belly guns. GG.
And what is the assertion that the Blackjack is too big being based on? PGI's internal assessment? There's an arbitrary bar set somewhere no matter what perspective you are coming from, so who is to say that PGI's is better other than PGI? And yes, I'm aware of your stance on PGI vs. the Players. Objectively, silhouettes are what you should be using to measure because a silhouette is what you will see on the screen. You only ever see one angle at once. If the 'Mechs of a given mass have roughly the same pixel counts from the key angles (front, rear, side...maybe top, but not really) and the distribution of those pixels across the components from those angles is similar, then you've got a good scale. And because it is two-dimensional, the sihouette is unaffected by greebly little things that could inflate the volumetric measure.
Let's be clear here.. the BJ should actually be the 45-ton standard bearer. It's every other 45 tonner that's poorly scaled... mostly the Vindicator (although its hardpoints is what fails it most) and the Ice Fridge Ferret.
Let's be clear here.. the BJ should actually be the 45-ton standard bearer. It's every other 45 tonner that's poorly scaled... mostly the Vindicator (although its hardpoints is what fails it most) and the Ice Fridge Ferret.
SCat is pretty good where it is for non-humanoid 45-tonners. It spreads damage so, so well...
I tried to warn you people, but ya'll insisted that this was the ultimate road to salvation and world peace for all of humankind.
Now you reap what you sow. "55 ton mech size" as Russ calls it will only become more common as a result of this process...and the reason most people asked for this was to SOLVE that problem.
Is that just because Russ doesnt know how to scale properly? a 45t mech should be generally smaller then a 55t. Isnt there TROs that tell Russ how big mechs are?
Read the TRO, all the clan mechs are essentially the same height, just varying degrees of width and stuff.
Let's be clear here.. the BJ should actually be the 45-ton standard bearer. It's every other 45 tonner that's poorly scaled... mostly the Vindicator (although its hardpoints is what fails it most) and the Ice Fridge Ferret.
This is the basic logic problem you guys are having... you're literally saying "The BlackJack is fine... all the other 45 tonners are just too big. Keep the BlackJack the same size and make the other mechs smaller."
Well, that would be fine if PGI's system said the BlackJack model was volumetrically equal to it's actual tonnage. Buuuuuut, it's not. So regardless of what your perception is of what constitutes a perfectly-sized mech, the BlackJack is not it. That's the end of that discussion.
Only, what... 8 of the dozens of mechs we have were found to be close enough to their real size that they won't need rescaling? So yeah... most everything is gonna get changed, including whatever people are comparing the BlackJack to to say they believe it's "right." Chances are, once rescale is complete, it will still look "right." compared to other mechs... but now so will the Vindicator.
LordKnightFandragon, on 30 April 2016 - 01:08 PM, said:
Is that just because Russ doesnt know how to scale properly? a 45t mech should be generally smaller then a 55t. Isnt there TROs that tell Russ how big mechs are?
Read the TRO, all the clan mechs are essentially the same height, just varying degrees of width and stuff.
Scaling based on TROs would result in mechs being scaled just as poorly as they are now, or perhaps even worse.
Let's be clear here.. the BJ should actually be the 45-ton standard bearer. It's every other 45 tonner that's poorly scaled... mostly the Vindicator (although its hardpoints is what fails it most) and the Ice Fridge Ferret.
Exactly. As the Zeus should've been the reference 80 tonner.
It's "this one is too small", versus "all of these are too big". Unfortunately PGI, like usual, chose unwisely.
ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 01:10 PM, said:
This is the basic logic problem you guys are having... you're literally saying "The BlackJack is fine... all the other 45 tonners are just too big. Keep the BlackJack the same size and make the other mechs smaller."
Well, that would be fine if PGI's system said the BlackJack model was volumetrically equal to it's actual tonnage. Buuuuuut, it's not. So regardless of what your perception is of what constitutes a perfectly-sized mech, the BlackJack is not it. That's the end of that discussion.
Only, what... 8 of the dozens of mechs we have were found to be close enough to their real size that they won't need rescaling? So yeah... most everything is gonna get changed, including whatever people are comparing the BlackJack to to say they believe it's "right." Chances are, once rescale is complete, it will still look "right." compared to other mechs... but now so will the Vindicator.
Why do yo refuse to consider that PGI is wrong? You're 100% convinced otherwise, because PGI said so.
It should be done to improve balance, because it is directly related to one of the most critical aspects of this game's combat.
Mech size is intrinsically linked to survivability, and they have been harping on how they want to improve TTK.
Thankfully, I'm not an idiot and I understand how critical size is to balance. I at no point said it wasn't.
Quote
It would be a massive mistake for them to not take this as a balance issue, a fundamental balance issue, and use all of this work they are doing to scale mechs down.
I don't disagree that things would help being smaller overall, with all mechs being harder to hit.
What I'm saying is that they AREN'T going to do that, so it's basically not worth discussing. Not that it's not a good idea, but that it just isn't happening. They've already said a few of the mechs are being used as basepoints for scaling, so the end result isnt going to be noticeably smaller. That just is what it is now.
Quote
It's not going to "remove scale" as a factor in terms of the total global impact on all mechs.
Smaller mechs have correspondingly smaller hitboxes, which are harder to target. It's that simple.
Again, rather than assuming I'm an utter idiot, let's try assuming instead you've misunderstood me. Size matters. But if all mechs are sized by volume, THEN ALL MECHS ARE THE CORRECT SIZE. This doesn't mean they are balanced: Shape(and derived hitboxes), hardpoints(number, type, location), quirks, the list goes on.
But what IS true is that a mech won't be "too big" or "too small" for its tonnage. Plain and simple.
Quote
Saying you don't care means you don't care about game balance, it means you don't care about TTK.
Oh, for ***** sake. Obviously I care about TTK and game balance. I get it. But ultimately it's just - as I said - a thought experiment because it isn't going to happen. As such, I'm not really interested in discussing what size things should be, because there's no guideline, and no point. It'd be an endless, useless argument. TT sizes are stupid, contradictory, and basically random. Smaller means harder to hit targets and extended ttk, too small takes away the Big Stompy part of our big Stompy robots. Endless discussion then about how much big Stompy to trade for more ttk.
Quote
This is a chance to improve TTK almost universally for all mechs, without needing to nerf hammer weapon systems, or tech bases or invent a new Ghost Heat 2.0 or create a system of quirks that PGI has repeatedly shown they are unable to logically design or properly manage.
It'd extend ttk, but not better balance. All that other stuff would still exist.
Globally smaller mechs means longer ttk but otherwise all the existing problems still exist.
Quote
This mech rescale could easily the most important balance factor of the last few years - but only if PGI recognizes the opportunity and does it well.
They aren't globally shrinking mechs. We know this, they've been clear from the start.
The BJ has relatively little geometry in the way of surface detailing compared to some of these other 'Mechs and it doesn't have arms...so of course it will have less volume.
If we look at silhouettes, like we're supposed to, it's fine.
What do you mean "like we're supposed to"? The BJ does have arms btw, they just have different shape. It does have concave side torsos, so it's volume should be low compared to its silhouette. There are different ways to balance mechs, there's no need to make their sizes based on balance. In fact I think PGI has a responsibility to keep the lore of the universe intact, as well as simple physics. It would be too complex to have different densities of all the different mechs. This is why you should establish an avg. density for mechs in general. Once you have the density, you can easily use the volume to calculate mass.
Russ has explicitly stated that they aren't choosing a mech from each tonnage as "right sized" or as a "reference". They are choosing a number and scaling everything to it.
You would take a mech from each tonnage as a reference, even suggesting that shows one doesn't understand what's happening. You'd only need one mech, or even just an arbitrary value. Once you know the volume per ton, it's a constant across every single mech in the game.
So, at most, one mech as a reference. Or calculate the current density of every mech, take the average, and rescale to that. Or pick something you like.
As Ultimax said, more dense (smaller per ton) means smaller mechs and longer ttk, but smaller mechs are smaller mechs, so the further down that road you go the less Big and Stompy our Big Stomp Robots are.
Exactly. As the Zeus should've been the reference 80 tonner.
It's "this one is too small", versus "all of these are too big". Unfortunately PGI, like usual, chose unwisely.
Why do yo refuse to consider that PGI is wrong? You're 100% convinced otherwise, because PGI said so.
Not because PGI says so... but because, unlike YOU and certain members of the community, PGI actually chose to use a completely OBJECTIVE system. Choose a set density that represents volume per ton, and adjust your models until their numbers match their actual listed tonnage.
You like the BJ for a 45-tonner, and a Zeus for an 80-tonner. Your scaling is based entirely on your perception, and you've chosen two completely different reference models with two completely different rescale scenarios. Why in the world would anyone choose two different reference models to size against? That makes no sense. And you've pretty much chosen them at random. What is this perception based on? You've got no objective value to compare to, so you're basically pulling the opinion out of your ***.
Simple mathematics takes guesswork and perception out of the equation. Under PGIs system, we'll know that the volume of a model will represent its actual tonnage. For good or ill, it will be correctly sized. With correctly-sized models, PGI can make adjustments via quirks if different mechs aren't performing well... you can then offset some inferior geometry and hardpoints with some quirks.
But until we get a baseline, it's just endless rounds of perception-based nonsense.
You could say the BJ is perfectly sized. Fine... but it's also extremely, uncharacteristically robust compared to other 45-tonners. Its got the best of both worlds right now, which is why it's not a very well-balanced mech. It likely won't be as robust if it was the same size as other 45-tonners, would it. So that would actually bring balance to the mech, right?
When talking about proper scale, please stop talking about the mech being OP or UP. It's about actual physics. There's no need to try to balance the game through messing with mech sizes. Some mechs are going to be better than others. Don't advocate that a mech should be smaller just because you want smaller hitboxes and a better mech. Mechs should be realistically sized.
Scarecrow outchea caping hard as **** for PGI's flawed implementation.
Russ has explicitly stated that they aren't choosing a mech from each tonnage as "right sized" or as a "reference". They are choosing a number and scaling everything to it.
I do not believe I ever implied that they were picking a Mech from each tonnage as "right sized". I believe I did hear him state on one of the two previous TH meeting that the Atlas was "right" sized. To use a scientific method of scaling based on math, you only need the one reference point and you can calculate from there. If the Atlas is "right" then you use that as your reference and adjust every other Mech based on that. Tonnage and outside dimensions get converted into mass and then you adjust to get a 1 to 1 ratio with the Atlas. It is science. It does not have to be rocket science because it is just a game after all and we are suspending belief every time we play it. IMO it makes a lot more sense than the arbitrary sizes that are being used at present and I am looking forward to the adjustments. I am open minded enough to take the good with the bad and I will adjust to the new normal.
Not because PGI says so... but because, unlike YOU and certain members of the community, PGI actually chose to use a completely OBJECTIVE system. Choose a set density that represents volume per ton, and adjust your models until their numbers match their actual listed tonnage.
You like the BJ for a 45-tonner, and a Zeus for an 80-tonner. Your scaling is based entirely on your perception, and you've chosen two completely different reference models with two completely different rescale scenarios. Why in the world would anyone choose two different reference models to size against? That makes no sense. And you've pretty much chosen them at random. What is this perception based on? You've got no objective value to compare to, so you're basically pulling the opinion out of your ***.
Simple mathematics takes guesswork and perception out of the equation. Under PGIs system, we'll know that the volume of a model will represent its actual tonnage. For good or ill, it will be correctly sized. With correctly-sized models, PGI can make adjustments via quirks if different mechs aren't performing well... you can then offset some inferior geometry and hardpoints with some quirks.
But until we get a baseline, it's just endless rounds of perception-based nonsense.
You could say the BJ is perfectly sized. Fine... but it's also extremely, uncharacteristically robust compared to other 45-tonners. Its got the best of both worlds right now, which is why it's not a very well-balanced mech. It likely won't be as robust if it was the same size as other 45-tonners, would it. So that would actually bring balance to the mech, right?
You're right he has no legitimate basis for what he's saying. He doesn't want to figure out the truth. He has an opinion and wants to prove it's true.
I would like to know where this all went from "some mechs have balance problems because of their scale" to "we should rescale all the mechs because I feel like they're wrong or something?"
The whole point from the start was to rescale a few problem mechs.
And on that note, the statements about the rescaling being "mathematically perfect" are ridiculous when it's volume that they're talking about. Volume is not what is important. What is important is frontal and side profile surface area.
WolframMan, on 30 April 2016 - 01:34 PM, said:
When talking about proper scale, please stop talking about the mech being OP or UP. It's about actual physics. There's no need to try to balance the game through messing with mech sizes. Some mechs are going to be better than others. Don't advocate that a mech should be smaller just because you want smaller hitboxes and a better mech. Mechs should be realistically sized.
Frankly, I don't care if mechs are realistically sized when they do huge breaks from reality by making the gravity 3-4 times higher than it would be in real life. All the mechs in the game accelerate their fall far too quickly. They should be way, way more floaty if you are talking about realistic behavior. That's a way bigger physics concern than the scale of mechs.
The one, and only concern should be for what makes for a better game. Not for what makes sense assuming a certain density and whatnot.
8
Deathlike, on 30 April 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:
