776 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 09:12 AM, said:

No,. it's a biased statement.

Just saying that doesn't make it so. In what way is it biased? It is very true that the size (area) of the top of a rectangular prism is a function of the width and depth of the entire prism. It's also very true that if I look at the prism from an oblique angle, then I can see a little bit of both the front face and the side face. These truisms don't cease to exist just because a 'Mech is not a regular geometrical shape.

Height of the prism doesn't matter because being tall never killed any 'Mech in this game. See Cicada, Grasshopper, Executioner, Atlas, Timberwolf, Black Knight, etc.

Ergo, only the front and side profiles really mean anything in this game.

[C E Dwyer]

Afuldan McKronik, on 19 June 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

Precisely. Humanoids trade off height for proper shielding while twisting. Aircraft torsos trade off shielding for height. XL in long torso mechs are usually easy kills, but a smart player can make a humanoid mech XL friendlyish with twisting.

If the arms are placed in a way to shield, which is why the Hunchback II has such a bad time

[Mcgral18]

Please, explain how so many people can defend this monstrosity of a rescale?


Do people really not give a **** about balance?
Quirks will never fix what is happening to some of these robots, and certainly not in 2016

And here, we see the glorious 55 ton Mech Size, in it's 'Completely bias' and , as you put it "[color=#959595]Warhammer to 55 tonners is another laugher[/color]"

Yes, have a laugh. This is how it is presently




Both are getting bigger in the rescale, so I'll keep these for comparison's sake.
I have a laugh, just like you, a 55 ton mech VS a 70 ton mech, which people DEFEND, FFS



Whiteknight harder, plz

(pics are full guns, minus missiles aside from the SRM6 *4)

Edited by Mcgral18, 19 June 2016 - 09:34 AM.

[xVLFBERHxT]

The problem with the scale: lore mech-scales vs "how my mech should be, to be usefull/ comp"-scale...

not my problem

Edited by TrapJaw80, 19 June 2016 - 09:29 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yeonne Greene, on 19 June 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

Just saying that doesn't make it so. In what way is it biased? It is very true that the size (area) of the top of a rectangular prism is a function of the width and depth of the entire prism. It's also very true that if I look at the prism from an oblique angle, then I can see a little bit of both the front face and the side face. These truisms don't cease to exist just because a 'Mech is not a regular geometrical shape.

Height of the prism doesn't matter because being tall never killed any 'Mech in this game. See Cicada, Grasshopper, Executioner, Atlas, Timberwolf, Black Knight, etc.

Ergo, only the front and side profiles really mean anything in this game.

I've stated and explained why in multiple posts. Feel free to read them. Though I hold little hope of your attaining comprehension at this point.

[Mcgral18]

Trauglodyte, on 19 June 2016 - 09:10 AM, said:

Probably what they should have done was skipped the whole "Before and After" stuff and simply did an in-game line-up; here are the Lights, Mediums, Heavies, Assaults, blah blah blah.

Oh, I was going to do this anyway, but PGI did a pretty damn good job there, saving me some work
Now, I just need to do Mech VS mech (like 55 ton mech size VS not 55 ton mech size)

Or Crab VS Nova

[Bishop Steiner]

[Davers]

One has to wonder why PGI would post before and after pictures if they are unfit for comparative purposes.

[PhoenixFire55]

To shoot the enemy you need to face the enemy. Anything that isn't a frontal projection is irrelevant.

[Deathlike]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 09:29 AM, said:

Bishop, you're just proving that you're wrong.

Knowing that even the current Awesome is the #1 worst scaled Assault mech AND it has quirks AND people will still run a Direwolf over an Awesome any day of the week.

Just because the Awesome is thin on the sides does not actually stop it from being hit so easily... for an 80 tonner... when the Dire Wolf itself is already a damage magnet by nature.

Edited by Deathlike, 19 June 2016 - 09:43 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 09:27 AM, said:

I've stated and explained why in multiple posts. Feel free to read them. Though I hold little hope of your attaining comprehension at this point.

Please, you are only making a fool of yourself:

Yeonne Greene, on 18 June 2016 - 06:50 PM, said:

Dead space is irrelevant since I can't do damage to dead space, arms and legs are only tertiary targets of opportunity. Height, honestly, doesn't mean anything unless hard-points are spread out vertically and not near the cockpit, but width and depth of the torso can be real killers.

I have been talking about width and depth this whole time. Perhaps you should take an introductory English course? For an introduction, you are supposed to read from the top of the page to the bottom, not the other way around.

Moving on, the concept of a target being 2D has nothing to do with only considering only the front profile's width; it has everything to do with the target, as presented to you on your 2D screen at any given moment, being a 2D shape whose contour is determined by a combination of the visible cardinal angles. That is a fact. That is the nature of trying to simulate 3D objects in an inherently 2D medium. That is the nature of you viewing an actual 3D object in the real world, too, since depth is implicit information rather than explicit unless you can touch around the object, too.

Now, the shape changes from instant to instant, but it will always be 2D and it will always be a combination of the width, depth, and height of the 'Mech, with a massive emphasis on the first two since height rarely factors into a fight unless the hard-points are low.

It's not biased. It's how this **** works.

[Chados]

I was more iffy about it til I saw the wide-range scale comparison graph like the one Tarogato did a long time ago, that shows all the mechs together. The Marauder and Timber Wolf are right next to each other so you can see that they are nearly identical, the Marauder just stands a little taller. Squat it a bit and they'd be about the same size. As they should be.

[NoiseCrypt]

Ultimax, on 19 June 2016 - 09:16 AM, said:

Seriously, I'm baffled that people can even say something like "try it first".

Are you delirious? What do you think we have been doing in the game for years?

Or rather, just WTF have THEY been doing?

How about not facetanking... that's what we have been doing...

[Cy Mitchell]

Yet most the people who are complaining about the size of the Mechs are focused on how tall (height) some are in relationship to others. Case in point the comparison of the Phoenix Hawk and the Catapult.


Just an observation based on the second to the last sentence in the above post.

Edited by Rampage, 19 June 2016 - 09:46 AM.

[Mcgral18]

NoiseCrypt, on 19 June 2016 - 09:42 AM, said:

How about not facetanking... that's what we have been doing...

You need to be frontal to shoot, no matter what you do ("Free look with arms" is a ******** excuse)

Frontal, or twisted side, are the important angles. Top is significantly less of an issue

[Y E O N N E]

Rampage, on 19 June 2016 - 09:45 AM, said:

Yet most the people who are complaining about the size of the Mechs are focused on how tall some are in relationship to others. Case in point the comparison of the Phoenix Hawk and the Catapult.

A.) Catapult was big in all dimensions, not just height That it is significantly narrower from the front and shorter in depth is what's going to make this 'Mech good like the Ebon Jag now, not its height. Even then, it's still a long 'Mech so a side shot is going to kill it really fast.

B.) Not everybody complaining has a full understanding of how the game works.

If we take the new Catapult, and we straighten its legs out a bit more so it's standing taller, it would have zero impact on its performance in the game. If we took the Black Knight and squashed its torso into a cylinder with a more square front and side profile, it would make it better at ridge-humping but it would not change its direct tanking ability at all. We can get the exact same result by boosting the hard-points up closer to cockpit level.

[Mechteric]

Ouch, the Jenners are going to be CT crit even more I'm surprised the Arctic Cheetah didn't get bigger like the Spider too, hmm

[Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky]

GRiPSViGiL, on 19 June 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

Hopefully your wallet is telling you it is closed when it comes to PGI.

Right now... Its having an arguement with my brain... Urging me to ask for a refund...

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 19 June 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

You need to be frontal to shoot, no matter what you do ("Free look with arms" is a ******** excuse)

Frontal, or twisted side, are the important angles. Top is significantly less of an issue

Freelook can be risky, especially when you're trying to use something like a Wolverine-6K's right arm to do work (since like, that's literally where the majority over the firepower comes from).

[Trauglodyte]

Deathlike, on 19 June 2016 - 09:37 AM, said:

Bishop, you're just proving that you're wrong.

Knowing that even the current Awesome is the #1 worst scaled Assault mech AND it has quirks AND people will still run a Direwolf over an Awesome any day of the week.

Just because the Awesome is thin on the sides does not actually stop it from being hit so easily... for an 80 tonner... when the Dire Wolf itself is already a damage magnet by nature.

I'd say that he's proving the one thing that I brought up before and that we all know: being as tall and wide as a mech that weighs much more than yours (see Griffin and Warhammer, if you will) doesn't mean that it is balanced just because the Warhammer is deeper than the Griffin. This is the one thing that really hurts the concept of volumetric balancing. BUT, it has to be done so that we can get the mechs balanced amoungst themselves.