38 replies to this topic

[Hit the Deck]

By "reference point" I mean the singular 'Mech whose volume is taken as correct for its tonnage and its density (mass or tonnage per volume) is used for the others to be rescaled as needed. For starters, I think Russ said that the Atlas is pretty much spot on, so, Atlas it is?

EDIT: or perhaps they already have the density value but didn't really use it all this time?

Edited by Hit the Deck, 11 June 2016 - 05:16 AM.

[TexAce]

I think it was the hunchback.

[Pariah Devalis]

Atlas, Hunchback, and Adder are reference point mechs, IIRC. Not sure which heavy mech is considered a reference point, however.

[LT. HARDCASE]

The ADDER was the reference? Oh man the light bracket is getting screwed over.

Griffin was the reference for the 55 tonners I've been guessing. Shadow Hawk was listed as 1.something percent off, and the Griffin is just barely that much different in size.

[oldradagast]

All they technically needed were two correct mechs to build a linear function of weight vs. total volume. Admittedly, light mechs get an extra "shrinking bonus" to make them smaller than they should be, but that can be factored in after.

If, instead, they just looked at mechs in each tonnage class and altered the ones that were different to match the general trend in that class, they are going to build mistakes into the system in cases where most mechs in a given tonnage bracket are too big (or too small, though that is rare.) For example, the IS 55-tonners are all too large if we use the Hunchback as a 50-ton reference point. But most of the 55-tonners are about the same size, so they'll "fix" the outliers instead of rescaling the class - laziness at its finest. Same problem with IS 80-ton mechs: Awesome and Victor are too big, Zeus is about right. From what I've heard, Victor is now "about right," Zeus is going to get BIGGER (killing it), and the Awesome will get a remodel, but who knows how much smaller it will be. Ugh!

Edited by oldradagast, 11 June 2016 - 06:10 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

LT. HARDCASE, on 11 June 2016 - 06:04 AM, said:

The ADDER was the reference? Oh man the light bracket is getting screwed over.

Griffin was the reference for the 55 tonners I've been guessing. Shadow Hawk was listed as 1.something percent off, and the Griffin is just barely that much different in size.

What's odd is, that would mean the 35 ton mechs are getting fat, yet the Locust is supposedly TOO BIG as it is. I'm not entirely sure how that works?

[Juodas Varnas]

Pariah Devalis, on 11 June 2016 - 06:26 AM, said:

What's odd is, that would mean the 35 ton mechs are getting fat, yet the Locust is supposedly TOO BIG as it is. I'm not entirely sure how that works?

[Yellonet]

Whichever mech it is, it doesn't matter as the relative result will be the same.

[Hit the Deck]

Pariah Devalis, on 11 June 2016 - 06:26 AM, said:

What's odd is, that would mean the 35 ton mechs are getting fat, yet the Locust is supposedly TOO BIG as it is. I'm not entirely sure how that works?

Volumetric scaling is magical. You can't never be sure how voluminous a 'Mech is by only eyeing at it, only a computer knows the exact value!

[Bishop Steiner]

Hit the Deck, on 11 June 2016 - 05:13 AM, said:

By "reference point" I mean the singular 'Mech whose volume is taken as correct for its tonnage and its density (mass or tonnage per volume) is used for the others to be rescaled as needed. For starters, I think Russ said that the Atlas is pretty much spot on, so, Atlas it is?

EDIT: or perhaps they already have the density value but didn't really use it all this time?

If he thinks the Atlas was "spot on" then everything is going to get waaaaay bigger volumetrically. Considering most Lights were intentionally massively undersized initially.

If I remember correctly, the HBK and Jenner were two of the ones that actually were pretty close in original tests.

But reality is, they will simply pick a mech call it "good" and then base the volumes around it, which in the end, is all that realyl matters, that they have an even scale across the board.

Hit the Deck, on 11 June 2016 - 07:47 AM, said:

Volumetric scaling is magical. You can't never be sure how voluminous a 'Mech is by only eyeing at it, only a computer knows the exact value!

Eh, depend on how complex the shape is. You can still eyeball a decent bit. Not perfectly, but close.

Pariah Devalis, on 11 June 2016 - 06:26 AM, said:

What's odd is, that would mean the 35 ton mechs are getting fat, yet the Locust is supposedly TOO BIG as it is. I'm not entirely sure how that works?

doesn't mean anything is getting fat...since volume is a constant whether tall and skinny or short and fat.

Pariah Devalis, on 11 June 2016 - 05:53 AM, said:

Atlas, Hunchback, and Adder are reference point mechs, IIRC. Not sure which heavy mech is considered a reference point, however.

Adder was not a reference point mech but a mech that was stated too large.

[Gorgo7]

I'm confident that they will get 98% of them spot on and that it will be a nice linear track.
Based on the Atlas or the hunchback or the locust matters not a whit, provided that they do indeed scale them linearly which should be just as easy to do as to not get them right.

Optimism fellas!
Good times are coming!

[LT. HARDCASE]

Gorgo7, on 11 June 2016 - 08:02 AM, said:

I'm confident that they will get 98% of them spot on and that it will be a nice linear track.
Based on the Atlas or the hunchback or the locust matters not a whit, provided that they do indeed scale them linearly which should be just as easy to do as to not get them right.

Optimism fellas!
Good times are coming!

A wise Brother Librarian once said, "Hope is the first step, on the road to disappointment."

[Gorgo7]

LT. HARDCASE, on 11 June 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

A wise Brother Librarian once said, "Hope is the first step, on the road to disappointment."

Really? Sounds like you made it up to me.

[wanderer]

We've got a reference point now ourselves, thanks to the Butterbee.

That's a 65-tonner under the new scaling. Which means a 55-ton medium should be modestly smaller than that, and so forth.

Gorgo7, on 11 June 2016 - 10:59 AM, said:

Really? Sounds like you made it up to me.

Eenope.

[Gorgo7]

wanderer, on 11 June 2016 - 11:01 AM, said:

Eenope.

A video "character" is no wise man.

[C E Dwyer]

We find out Tuesday week

I'm doing my best to stay neutral and not get caught up in the speculation

we see when it arrives

[ScarecrowES]

For the record, Russ says there's no "reference mech." Though a particular mech or a "best set" selection may have informed the reference point.

wanderer, on 11 June 2016 - 11:01 AM, said:

We've got a reference point now ourselves, thanks to the Butterbee.

That's a 65-tonner under the new scaling. Which means a 55-ton medium should be modestly smaller than that, and so forth.

You also have pictures of the rescaled Nova and Dragon to go on, as well as a wide swath of known size increases and reductions to go by.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

LT. HARDCASE, on 11 June 2016 - 06:04 AM, said:

Griffin was the reference for the 55 tonners I've been guessing. Shadow Hawk was listed as 1.something percent off, and the Griffin is just barely that much different in size.

I hope not, the missile pods on the shoulders easily look like 5-7 tons, lrm 20 looks like srm 2.

[SpiralFace]

LT. HARDCASE, on 11 June 2016 - 06:04 AM, said:

The ADDER was the reference? Oh man the light bracket is getting screwed over.

To be fair, Even within the "Player run" scaling tracking, most lights are well bellow the "average curb" that mechs of that size should anyways. (And this was tracked as an average between the Locust and the Atlas.)


So even if PGI went with the "player suggested" list over their own system, Lights would still stand to be "screwed over" anyways, since they are already well below the average for even the list that every seems to love.

Edited by SpiralFace, 11 June 2016 - 01:05 PM.

[Alex Morgaine]

There are no wise men. Just wise guys.