776 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 07:51 AM, said:

I need to check..I think height is the issue, in most cases... more than thigh gap.... hmmmmmm.

Since all mech are either neutered or female, one needn't worry about clearing any dangly bits.

[Bishop Steiner]

Chagatay, on 19 June 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

But can it run through the Executioner' legs that is the question. King Crab even looks better as it has a very wide stance. Could it wiggle/wrap through?

sadly, no.

It's conceivable, that an armless LCT in perfect stride could slip through....

But we all know PGIs collision meshes ain't clean enough to allow it. Sadly.

DaZur, on 19 June 2016 - 08:00 AM, said:

Since all mech are either neutered or female, one needn't worry about clearing any dangly bits.

atlases have odd dangly bits..but from the rear.... always just assumed a full load in the diaper.....

[Andi Nagasia]

Stefka Kerensky, on 19 June 2016 - 07:44 AM, said:

Is it a novelty for you?
Community discussed about this since the beginning.

About BT comparison: lol, is there anyone still thinking mwo has something to do with BT? really?

well lets see,
how is MWO like BattleTech
1) the Mechs are From BattleTech,
2) the weapons are From BattleTech,
3) MWO has most of the Stats of BattleTech,
4) we buildup and Displace Heat like BattleTech,
how is MWO not like BattleTech?

Afuldan McKronik, on 19 June 2016 - 07:58 AM, said:

Most of the humanoid mechs are getting "shafted" as you say. Look at the difference between a Marauder (a chicken legged, aircraft torso, fairly thick arms) and the Grasshopper (a straight legged, humanoid torso, and humanoid arms).

It is the way the mechs are designed, combined with how they would need to "spend" their volume on. Frontal profiles only, GHR got shafted. Side/top profiles only, MAD got shafted.

but then again Humanoid mechs usually have a better time twisting to Spread Damage,
where as a mech with a long Nose, has problems Twisting, if you know where to aim on them,

[Bishop Steiner]

Stefka Kerensky, on 19 June 2016 - 07:33 AM, said:

I'm still speechless if you think (I hope you don't) new catapult and the PXH can perform at same lavels.

Because you know....with this gamestyle pgi gave us, any mech should be able to perform at least quite the same level.
And only Trump-like people can think this.


Read my post: I don0t care about this, because when someone shoots, it's the dimension of the silouette that matters.
That's why months ago I stated that volumetric rescale would be plain $h1t.

New catapult can be next meta.
PXH will be a circus mech, trust me.

and if all mechs stood still with a single frontal facing at the enemy at all times, this would be true. And if this is how you play, then no amount of scaling is going to help you. Mechs are MOVING 3D constructs. Not 2D Cutouts. So the fact that you WILL see the side profile, 3/4 profile, LRMs do consider top profile, etc, all have to be considered. Catapults and Marauders are screwed if moving laterally to the shooter, since their SIDE PROFILE IS FRIKKING huge.

What's shocking is the numebr of people who can't wrap their minds around the fact the mechs are 3D constructs, not 2.

We ain't playing PONG, chief.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 19 June 2016 - 08:11 AM.

[Afuldan McKronik]

Andi Nagasia, on 19 June 2016 - 08:02 AM, said:

well lets see,
how is MWO like BattleTech
1) the Mechs are From BattleTech,
2) the weapons are From BattleTech,
3) MWO has most of the Stats of BattleTech,
4) we buildup and Displace Heat like BattleTech,
how is MWO not like BattleTech?


but then again Humanoid mechs usually have a better time twisting to Spread Damage,
where as a mech with a long Nose, has problems Twisting, if you know where to aim on them,

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.

[Bishop Steiner]

Another verdict is that most people cannot think outside of 2D referencing, and so make realyl ludicrous claims like frontal silhouette is all that matters on a moving, 3D construct. Maybe I actualyl am in the 1%...but me, I tend to move, flank, twist, and as such the side profile, 3/4 profile, Legs at front, upper body turned sideways profile...all matter.

And because I don't play in comp leagues, LRMs sometime happen too. And just ask any poor King Crab that got caught away from cover (and or narc'd) just how meaningless that top profile is.

Seems like a lot of smart people who can't process the whole picture. What's not clear is if that is because they simply can't, or it doesn't suit their agenda.

[C E Dwyer]

Ok not arguing the point but if the Mech bay pictures are inaccurate, in a before and after,even with a disclaimer, why in hell to sweet jesus did PGI use the mech bay shot.

Surely they have the basic I.Q to realise that using them would cause a **** storm if they are inaccurate ?

[Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky]

Wait... How many tonnes is each of those mechs in the pictu....

Uh oh... My wallet wants to have a word with me... I think im in trouble...

(P.s... Most of the time, engagements come from the front profile, thats why we front load our armor...)

(Also, we should consider targetable surface area, not volumetric empty space, because a lot of center torso mass is blocked by side torsos. Pretty sure theres a damage reduction on damage transfer through destroyed components).

[Aetes Nakatomi]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 08:10 AM, said:

Another verdict is that most people cannot think outside of 2D referencing, and so make realyl ludicrous claims like frontal silhouette is all that matters on a moving, 3D construct. Maybe I actualyl am in the 1%...but me, I tend to move, flank, twist, and as such the side profile, 3/4 profile, Legs at front, upper body turned sideways profile...all matter.

And because I don't play in comp leagues, LRMs sometime happen too. And just ask any poor King Crab that got caught away from cover (and or narc'd) just how meaningless that top profile is.

Seems like a lot of smart people who can't process the whole picture. What's not clear is if that is because they simply can't, or it doesn't suit their agenda.

Wish I could like this more than once... I really really do...

Edit - Remembered my clan account and did just that!

2nd Edit - When people say top profile does not matter they have obviously never been hit with any LRMs, Airstrike, Arty strike or been wombling through a canyon when some douchelord fires down on you from above.

Edited by Aetes Nakatomi, 19 June 2016 - 08:27 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Cathy, on 19 June 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

Ok not arguing the point but if the Mech bay pictures are inaccurate, in a before and after,even with a disclaimer, why in hell to sweet jesus did PGI use the mech bay shot.

Surely they have the basic I.Q to realise that using them would cause a **** storm if they are inaccurate ?

because sometimes people only think things partway thru, and some people are optimists. People would have clamored for the full color 3D goodies, and Alex worked his butt off trying to put together an amazingly detailed set of patch notes, that he shoudl be getting praised for.

I've seen very smart people working against the crunch forget or overlook a detail. I know I sure have. I'm guessing Alex didn't think, or hoped, that people would IDK...actually read the disclaimer and look at the massive scale chart, then take the Mechlab Pics with a grain of salt.

Same chassis, they are mostly accurate. It's when people try to compare on chassis to another that things get borked. So I'm pretty sure the intent was for the Mechlab photos to be viewed "in a bubble" as before and after comparos of each chassis... not from chassis to chassis comparisons, which is what the Ortho Chart does.

[STEF_]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 08:06 AM, said:

and if all mechs stood still with a single frontal facing at the enemy at all times, this would be true. And if this is how you play, then no amount of scaling is going to help you. Mechs are MOVING 3D constructs. Not 2D Cutouts. So the fact that you WILL see the side profile, 3/4 profile, LRMs do consider top profile, etc, all have to be considered. Catapults and Marauders are screwed if moving laterally to the shooter, since their SIDE PROFILE IS FRIKKING huge.

What's shocking is the numebr of people who can't wrap their minds around the fact the mechs are 3D constructs, not 2.

We ain't playing PONG, chief.

If you think that in a match you can always show your sides, and enemies cannot and won't ever focus your face, well... then... it truly depends against you are playing, chief . Maybe against tier 3-4-5 can work.

IT's pretty delirant when people say "Yes pxh is tall and large.... but it is thin, so get gud".

ROLF

Andi Nagasia, on 19 June 2016 - 08:02 AM, said:

well lets see,
how is MWO like BattleTech
1) the Mechs are From BattleTech,
2) the weapons are From BattleTech,
3) MWO has most of the Stats of BattleTech,
4) we buildup and Displace Heat like BattleTech,
how is MWO not like BattleTech?

I think you are the only one thinking mwo has something to do with BT.
You are in an island, bruh.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Stefka Kerensky, on 19 June 2016 - 12:43 AM, said:

Bigger size with 20 tons less.
Mind: I don't give a $h1t if catalupt is a chicken leg, bla bla bla.
Thinking to balance through rescaling is simply r3t4rted mindset.
Every mech should be nearly equally effective, right?
Take a look at Catapult quirks and PXH ones.

I don't give a $h1t if pgi will do a quirk pass.... in MONTHS!!!
Aren0t they able to figure out that a lot of mechs will do $h1t?
Do they really need MONTHS of data to figure it out?

AKA, once again, after 4 years, they still know nothing about its own game.

So, yes.... RIP PGI, RIP.

You are an outright liar. The Orthos provided by the developers show that the Mech comparison in your opening thread is completely wrong. Please delete this thread.

You can do this by editing your OP and using the thread moderation tool to delete it

Thank you.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 19 June 2016 - 08:27 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 08:02 AM, said:

sadly, no.

It's conceivable, that an armless LCT in perfect stride could slip through....

But we all know PGIs collision meshes ain't clean enough to allow it. Sadly.


atlases have odd dangly bits..but from the rear.... always just assumed a full load in the diaper.....

clearly the locust is the dangly bits

[STEF_]

Prosperity Park, on 19 June 2016 - 08:26 AM, said:

You are an outright liar. The Orthos provided by the developers show that the Mech comparison in your opening thread is completely wrong. Please delete this thread.

You can do this by editing your OP and using the thread moderation tool to delete it

Thank you.

Please edit your post:


Thank you.

edit: plase note that the dimension between the torsi are very similar, but meanwhile you can mont and do good build using STD engine with the catapult... the PXH must mount XL. And with far less armor.
And with laughable quirks.

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 19 June 2016 - 08:33 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Stefka Kerensky, on 19 June 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

Please edit your post:


Thank you.

I see an Ortho comparison that DRASTICALLY differers from the information in your opening post, the fuel for this whole thread.

How about a compromise:. Put the Ortho in your OP to prove how wrong you mechlab-based comparison is?

[Lily from animove]

Mcgral18, on 19 June 2016 - 01:26 AM, said:

What other angles do you shoot robots at?

Agility is only different due to quirks (otherwise, minimally superior for the 55 tonner)
Agility=speed, only quirks change that

side below when hes in the ground because the others stomped over him.

the cuteapult really shrinked too far. yes it has soem bigger sideprofile it also has wider legs and stuff still i think taking the tonnage into account it shouldn't have been THAT small.

Edited by Lily from animove, 19 June 2016 - 08:37 AM.

[TheCharlatan]

Thanks for posting this Bish.

[STEF_]

Prosperity Park, on 19 June 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

I see an Ortho comparison that DRASTICALLY differers from the information in your opening post, the fuel for this whole thread.

How about a compromise:. Put the Ortho in your OP to prove how wrong you mechlab-based comparison is?

Done.
(I wrote the thread before seeing the orthos)

[EgoSlayer]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 08:10 AM, said:

Another verdict is that most people cannot think outside of 2D referencing, and so make realyl ludicrous claims like frontal silhouette is all that matters on a moving, 3D construct. Maybe I actualyl am in the 1%...but me, I tend to move, flank, twist, and as such the side profile, 3/4 profile, Legs at front, upper body turned sideways profile...all matter.

And because I don't play in comp leagues, LRMs sometime happen too. And just ask any poor King Crab that got caught away from cover (and or narc'd) just how meaningless that top profile is.

Seems like a lot of smart people who can't process the whole picture. What's not clear is if that is because they simply can't, or it doesn't suit their agenda.

Which is all fine and good, but most of the game is fought in the same Z axis so its the silhouettes that matter the most. So yes I can see the whole picture, but I also know that no mechs fly and that on most maps fights are at the same elevations, both because of map design and (most) players avoiding getting trapped in kill boxes.

Exceptions would be LRMs which always have a Z axis component to them, and strikes.

[Lily from animove]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:

I almost feel bad doing this, but at the end of the day, I am seeing some horribly misleading posts, many by people I genuinely like and respect.

The Mechlab Camera does NOT show mechs to scale. This has been known and stated by PGI for a very long time. Yet people (and myself included before I knew that) post images from them as scale "gospel".

This isn't helped by PGI using them also at times (honestly while Alex put a huge amount of work into the patch notes, which I for one, appreciate the heck out of, the inclusion of the Mechlab comparos seem to have caused more issues on the forums than good.)

I do not feel inclined to take every possible comparo (the Warhammer to 55 tonners is another laugher that I probably will add, though, when I get a chance), I'm going to take one that is being used heavily to "prove the rescale is bad".....

and then debunk it.



From the Patch Notes:
"Just in case, please note that these silhouettes are captured using an orthographic camera, whereas the Re-Scale comparison images in the above links are taken with the standard MechLab perspective camera. As a result of that difference, scales may appear slightly different if comparing 'Mechs between the two images"



An overlay using their Orthographic camera comparison

100% debunks the OP, and pretty much every similar one I have seen.

Even just comparing the raw side by sides of the Orthos sillhouettes and the Mech Lab pic, the discrepancy is pretty apparent.

Add into the fact that we are dealing with 3D assets, which have depth, and focusing only on the frontal image is totally misleading (IDK about you, but I try not to stare at the other guy the whole match)

I'm sorry to call you guys out, but I'm "speechless" at the Trump-like levels people seem to want to go on this, when "the truth is out there" for everyone.

Constructive criticism is fine. Concerns are understandable. But let's at least TRY to use the info that PGI put out for everyone to see to be accurate, at least, please?

I think the 50t catapult is fine in this size

yes the cata had unsuited size and hitboxes but this clearly shrinked too far when you compare it to other mechs.

Edited by Lily from animove, 19 June 2016 - 08:41 AM.