can you over lay a Firestarter.. Or one of the other humanoid 35 tonners with a cicada? It's got me curious..
To the rest of the thread though.. wow so much gloom and doom.. Stuff like this makes me laugh, At least now there is a sensible line of size/volume.. But i never realized how many mechs i played that were right on point, or way way to large.. I think i'll get a buff just by playing like i always have! YAY ME!! I wanna say i feel bad for all the mechs that were horribly out of line.. But i don't.. Time to find something else to exploit for good stats..
I completely agree with Bishop and others that resizing them volumetrically is really the one and only rational way of doing it. That being said there are a few ways it could have been done better. It seems to me that more things got bigger than smaller and this is on the whole going to reduce TTK even further. That doesn't bother me too much (I don't mind large alphas and think we don't need ghost heat or any other system of making weapons less effective -- except convergence, nerf the f**k out of convergence) but I know a lot of the community won't like that aspect. I think there are a number of 2nd tier and lower mechs that were made larger, whose relative proportions could have been adjusted more intelligently, rather than simply stretching the model to arrive at the appropriate volume. EXE's should have gotten a little chunkier rather than taller for example.
Absolute scales do not make that much difference, but relative scale does. Also, the relative impact of scale-downs is much, much greater, than scale-ups across the board. Those changes would mostly affect the vulnerability of mechs across long range, and for enlarged mechs it will be negligible. Neither of the changes are going to impact the 1st Tier mechs in any significant degree, but there will be much, much more reason to pick mechs, that will no longer be outrageously oversized.
Making a mech a little bit chunkier would produce just the same effect, as uniformly scaling it a little up, if not worse. Uniform scale expands dimensions, that many players used to neglect. Making components easier to pin-point is a whole different story.
Yeah, sure. So would you be ok if Mist Lynx would be the size of a Stormcrow?
Ice Ferret the height of a Warkhawk? Do you specifically choosing to ignore the parts of your reference, that doesn't coincide with very narrow examples you're arguing for?
What was fine for TT will never work in MWO. How many times one needs to tell you that, so that you'd understand? All your references to the legacy sketches are meaningless.
Engine limits and firing rates is a completely different discussion. Balancing iteration would likely be necessary, nobody is arguing against it, but it will only be effective when the rescale persists for a month or two.
If there would be only one thing, that rescale would achieve, it'd be a solid foundation to balance quirks for mechs as being equal, without making excessive cases based on their geometry being invalid.
Maybe not, but I dont like the Warhawk being 3m taller then even what an Atlas should be either....The Executioner and those bigger mechs are still 10-15 feet taller then they should be, they are nearly 2 stories taller then they should be. Atlas is currently like 59 feet, when it should be 49. Warhawk should be like 39 feet tall, same with the Dire Wolf.
Use the chart for the big mechs and shrink the smaller mechs further is how I personally would do it. The lights would all be around 8m tall, the big ones around 12, unless stated otherwise, as is the case with mechs like the Atlas, which are 14-15m tall.
Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 20 June 2016 - 07:46 PM.
Did it need to be done... sure. However mechs got alot more vulnerable with no compensation for it. Lights specifically. We simply do not have the armor to get any larger.
This is my issue. AT BEST we will have to wait a month to get ANY defensive adjustments. And that is a BIG IF there with PGI's track record.
That is my concern. I am afraid this will completely wipe out the light queue except for those lights that did not change.
wow thanks... It does kinda look like they are very similar in size no? Now i'm not saying NERF cicada.. But according to that picture, shouldn't the cicada have grown just a little bit?
I will add, that seeing i play a cicada a lot, and they are very similar in size, with the 35 toners being faster in most cases.. perhaps they aren't in such a bad place anyway. I do think that people are blowing the light size out of proportion though.. while sure it maybe a half inch at 30m.. most of the time when you are fighting it will only end up being a very small difference in the end.
time for bed.. can't wait to play!! I'll be leveling Spiders, firestarters, quickdraws, and jag's finally... Some getting bigger, some smaller, some almost the same.. should be fun!
LordKnightFandragon, on 20 June 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:
Maybe not, but I dont like the Warhawk being 3m taller then even what an Atlas should be either....The Executioner and those bigger mechs are still 10-15 feet taller then they should be, they are nearly 2 stories taller then they should be. Atlas is currently like 59 feet, when it should be 49. Warhawk should be like 39 feet tall, same with the Dire Wolf.
Use the chart for the big mechs and shrink the smaller mechs further is how I personally would do it. The lights would all be around 8m tall, the big ones around 12, unless stated otherwise, as is the case with mechs like the Atlas, which are 14-15m tall.
I'm not a lore person so no clue if this is right or not.. BUT If so, then a global reduction now is very easy to do in the scheme of things i would think? Wouldn't it just be adding a modifier to the mech as a whole? Or would everything need to be changed, like skins, and textures and such? Perhaps it would be needed, i really dunno.. I am more worried about proportions, verse, lore actual heights.
Yes, all of it would need to be changed, proportions would have to be altered, but putting the mechs between 8-14m tall would make a much bigger impact then this rescale they did. Put the Warhammer at it's proper height, which looks to be maybe 12-13m tall, it looks like a tall mech, maybe 3 stories. Right now, its taller then an Atlas....in fact, every mech in this game besides the lights are taller then Atlases, even after this rescale.
The top of the remodeled Catapult is the height of the Atlas if done to the right height limits.
Replace Ice Ferret with Executioner, and Warhawk with an Atlas. A 95-tonner taller than a 100-tonner is not ok, but a 45-tonner as tall as the 85-tonner is ok. You just have pillaged your own logic.
Now you've pillaged the comparison metric you were using hours ago as inaccurate.
Mind me, according to that chart, Fire Moth and Mist Lynx use the same chassis.
Kit Fox and Adder use the same chassis.
Viper and Nova use the same chassis.
Hellbringer and Summoner use the same chassis.
Mad Dog and Timber Wolf use the same chassis.
Gargoyle and Executioner use the same chassis.
Warhawk and Dire Wolf use the same chassis.
So in the end all of these pairs are supposed to be nearly identical in scale, with just lighter/heavier loadouts mounted on top of the same chassis respectively.
Personally I don't believe it would work in MWO. Do you?
You've put words in my mouth. I never said I wasn't fine with the Executioner being taller than the Atlas; it canonically is because the Atlas is between 13.6 and 14 meters with the best description thus far stating "Intimidating would be an understatement." "Just shy of 14 meters, it is perhaps the tallest mech she had ever seen and to stand this close..."
Atlas, shy of 14 meters.
Executioner, tallest mech of Battletech, 14.4 meters.
Ice Ferret and Warhawk; same height... but volumetrically the Warhawk is much larger in bulk and girth.
You also need to get some facts handy there mate. Yes by looks they are similar on the outside.
Dire Wolf
Mass 100 tons.
Chassis: Titan HX Standard
Warhawk
Mass 85 tons
Chassis: Huntress WH Standard
Each has their own skeletal chassis though you can see they do have external cosmetics.
Also it wouldn't work in PGI's MWO, in a simulation that actually looked at the lore, reasons, etc. for things being the way they are and taking steps to assure that it isn't lost (i.e. Machine Guns; what was their purpose? Anti-infantry. Well damn where's the infantry? Insert infantry), it can work. I will revisit scale later.
On the reasons for things being the way they are, lets say for example Pulse Lasers have higher to-hit chances but lower accuracy range and higher heat generation with slightly higher overall damage.
PGI's solution: "Shorter beam time and cool sound. Jack up large laser and pulse laser though they seem kinda weak."
PGI's revised solution1: "Pulse and regular lasers aren't distinct enough. Even shorter duration, and increase heat on medium and small lasers."
PGI's revised solution bandaid: "FASA really jacked things up, it's unfair for them to be so hot -- even though it's our own fault -- so we made regular laser and pulse laser heat the same.
It just keeps going and going and going.
A developer that actually looked at the information would take note of the following things:
Laser range is degraded by particles in the air, as such things like smoke and ash would decrease range, colder climates where the air is empty may slightly increase range and vacuums would greatly increase range.
This fact creates a dynamic for lasers that has them being 'more' and 'less' reliable depending on the circumstances in the environment and of the battle; there is even mention of laser countermeasures including "Anti-Laser Aerosols" that "most mechs generally carried at least one or two uses of".You could even put in a clause that you'd only have them if your mech was 'girthy' enough, and thus the smaller harder to hit mechs of the same weight class wouldn't have them? All of these give good reason to use other weapon systems or to mix other weapon systems with your lasers.
There are two general types of standard laser, the 'zip' and the 'beam'. Zip lasers have 0.1 to 0.2 second long quick 'zips' and take a few to deliver their full damage, usually no more than 8 at the high end. A beam lasts up to 1 second and its tenth of a second damage is usually less, but the overall damage is usually delivered in less time, even if it is admittedly more face time, hardly more than 3 of these at the high end. Each type has its own merits. (There's also the Rassal Blue Beam but I won't get into this monitor-scrambling nightmare of a medium laser as this is getting into specific brand names).
This states that standard lasers could have variants of both shot-counts and shot-times, which is pretty important considering that out of 60 listed variants on Sarna, over 40 of them are considered 'unique' when compared to each other in how they functionally achieve the category's loose standards for medium lasers. Russal Blue Beam is by far the coolest one.
Pulse lasers generally come in one type, akin to 'Zip' lasers but are fired in a more machine-gun like manner, each individual 'zip' might do less damage, but their frequency is increased to the extent that they deal better damage (up to 20 shots). This also explains the increased to-hit rate as it is easier to 'drag' the weapon onto enemies while missing only a few zips. Because these zips need to keep hitting, the overall accurate range has dropped however, this doesn't mean it can't work to longer ranges. Just means it is a lot harder, and thus "accurate range" decrease. Not maximum range decrease, just accurate range.
Making pulse lasers completely unique from standard ones. Since pulse lasers are fairly weak per individual shot anyway, they won't degrade much if degradation is a percentage-based equation per shot, meaning they won't weaken nearly as much as regular lasers would. The way that they fire could compliment faster-firing lighter caliber ACs, allowing them to tie together nicely.
Notice that pulse lasers actually take longer to finish firing than standard lasers? Mechwarrior 3 still suffered the front-loaded damage problem with each weapon use, but at least its recycle rates were manageable to keep 1x armor/structure. The design I used above would have Battletech's "10 second damage ratings" and you'd fire several times to acheive it. This way 6 ML wouldn't be a "30 damage alpha".
Adding this style to other non-FLD weapons from the lore such as autocannons would then allow Mech Rifles to be viable as the 'single shot' fun times. So an AC/20 at 14 tons to spray multiple shots to get 20 damage with an accurate range of 270 meters (can reach 2,000 meters but it's accurate to 270 meters and degrades from there) or my Heavy Rifle that just needs one shot and pinpoint accurate to 540 meters for 9-3=6 damage in a single blow against armor and 9 damage against structure? Sure my Heavy Rifle wouldn't be ready to fire again for somewhere between 5 and 10 seconds (much like a regular AC/20 or UAC/20 ould churn out 40 damage in 10 seconds; with an extreme risk of permanent jam for the AC/20 and low risk of permanent jam for the UAC/20), but who cares? It's viable due to good design that encompasses "everything."
It covers everything, makes the two classifications of lasers different. You can even go a step further when addressing Clan lasers or when addressing an IS Large laser doing 8 damage while an IS Medium Laser does 5. The Large Laser would deliver that damage faster, such as the canonical example of the Atlas K's large laser firing 2 shots to get 8 damage (4, 4) while the average medium laser requires 3 shots (1.67, 1.67, 1.67[rounded up]) to get 5 damage.
Quote
Current minimum damage rate is 2x (Gauss), majority of weapons has modifier of 2.5x (all weapons with 4s cooldowns) and maximum dps modifier is 8x on Machineguns. What the hell is wrong with your math?
If legacy doesn't works, it is useless. Where it works, MWO utilizes it.
I've been around since 2012.
First keep in mind that all weapons (except Gauss) fire at "0", then again at "4" and again at "8".
That's 3x in 10 seconds minimum.
Gauss Rifle only JUST recently made that change, before it was 3x and this recent change was so protested because it made "The Gauss Rifle useless." This is an edge case just recently created; I've been making these arguments since 2012. Back then, PPCs could fire 4 times in 10 seconds with a 3 second cooldown timer. Thus 0, 3, 6, 9. 12, 15, 18. So 3.5 times average in 10 seconds for the PPCs back then.
The I meant to say the original AC/2 firing rate delivered 38 damage (19 bullets) in 10 seconds.
If an AC/2 in Battletech delivers 2 damage in 10 seconds and the same weapon system when PGI swore they were using TT stats does 38 damage (higher than the AC/10 could do in DPS), then something is very wrong. (I do make the correction that it was actually "Up to 19 times" damage. I do apologize I worded it incorrectly.) Edit: Made an additional correction that I had missed.
If legacy doesn't work because PGI half-assed it, then they don't use it. If it does work, it's a miracle because again they half-assed it...while it causes dozens more problems.
Their firing rates led to short time to kill, led to double armor/structure, led to high time to kill, led to reduction in heat, led to alpha problems, led to change in heat system and increase in heat, led to removal of heatsink melting, led to big alpha issues with PPCs, led to ghost heat, led to Gauss abuse, led to limiting Gauss, led to PPC AC/5 abuse, led to nerfing PPCs, led to ballistic meta, led to slowing down projectiles, led to laser vomit....
It's a chain reaction of problem after problem after problem after problem.
Koniving's Edit to add additional information: said:
Watch this; during the large laser spree. "Heatsink melted."
ZOMG, HEATSINKS USED TO MELT! OMG OMG OMG OMG!
....So why was this taken out?
Or...
Wait for near the end. 36 PPCs fired in 18 seconds with 10 DHS before I got destroyed.
Compare to this battle.
Notice how much more heat actually mattered? This is when the heat system was first changed to allow more than 104% without instantly exploding; there was also a time when the skill tree raised exclusively the "95% shutdown cap" by 10% of your total threshold rather than by increasing your threshold by 10%. So, I had the delimma of it no shutting down at 100% or less and so with my twin UAC/5 with manual unjam combo macro and twin AC/2s, I'd hit over 100% in 7 seconds on frozen colony and in 8 seconds I would instantly explode. Explode. No shutdown or anything. Now before I continue remember that back then there was no indications of damage to equipment other than heatsinks and even then nothing told me of heatsinks melting other than the heatsink icon monitor. So I didn't realize it at the time, what would actually happen wasn't instant death at 104% (mind you I did in fact fail to shutdown with that threshold skill being what it was back then), what actually happened according to Paul, is that back then at 80% heat, your internal equipment -- not structure, equipment -- would start taking damage. Weapons would take damage. Engine would take damage (not that it did anything). Gyro would take damage (made you easier to knock over). Ammo would take damage. Ammo. Would. Take. Damage. From. Heat.
Kaboom.
Yet in the youtube video above when they made the change to an override system that prevented shutdowns rather than interrupting shutdowns and making boot ups quicker...they also removed the 80% heat level "damage of equipment" thing in favor for random structure damage. Enter a new era of exploits.. (This, btw, is what caused ungodly expensive repairs even if you didn't die, especially if you ran hot on assault mechs with lots of equipment and an engine and when they came out endo/ferro... As endo/ferro slots were assigned rather stupidly 'health' and repair prices... and oh god so when XL engines came out and the 15 health for the engine was done, you had to pay for the repair of an entire engine at 1/10th cost. 6 million cbill engine? 600,000 cbills on your repair bill. If you were goddamn lucky, you got a 800,000 cbill paycheck or if you were exploiting the early reward system my top earnings was just shy of 3 million cbills, yay scouting actually mattering and paying!!! Anyway, thus the fall of the repair and rearm system first with 60 then 80% free refills on ammo; boat more ammo get all the free ammo... Then finally they just removed it.)
Thus ghost heat came... and now "power draw." Partially implemented legacy systems are broken; put in the entire system or don't bother.
PGI attempted a canonical approach with a half-assed system, where they put heatsink threshold (which is a separate entity in the Heatsink Taxing rule) and put it as part of Mech Threshold on top of heatsink cooling due to a lack of comprehension. Then explained it away as "Well heatsinks let you fire more in a round." A round is 10 seconds, heatsinks cool and through cooling you can fire more over time. Not fire more at the same instant. This also means that with PGI's implementation, for the first time ever, the maximum amount of weapons you can fire at the same time increases with each heatsink. Not the maximum amount of weapons you can fire overtime but the maximum amount you can fire at once. This. Isn't. Right. So rather than knowing that at any given time the maximum amount of heat that can be fired at once could be any number they set (30, 40, 60), they instead gave us a system which under specific maps gave us a maximum viable threshold of 136.2 for Clans at the time it was checked (2014). The IS capped out at less than 120. Creating problems from being half-assed in design begets more problems, require more half-baked solutions, create more problems... It is a never ending cycle.
So when it failed due to their blunder, rather than see the light and how they screwed it up, they kept bandaging it. Ghost heat. Didn't work did it? It isn't all encompassing, it is just half baked and needs to get squared away. Implement the whole thing or abandon it.
Another problem is that PGI discovered that jumpjets would leave heavy mechs in the air for a long period of time after the fuel had expired, where it felt like it took forever to get back down. As such because (when I asked Sean Lang about this I got this answer) "It didn't feel right", we effectively have between 2.8 and 3x the rate of earth's gravity on all maps regardless of stated gravity. As such, poptarting became super effective back in 2013 and part of 2014.. Partly due to this rapid fall situation, and partly due to environmental hitboxes allowing clear sight lines that provided invulnerability.
A frequent problem. These exploits led to jump nerfs, which led to subsequent falling damage implementation (keep in mind THAT specifically is a good thing), we get damage far too easily and will never have "Death from Above"... because "It didn't feel right." Did you stubble your leg on a quick half second stubble or run down a hill and nearly destroy your legs in 2015? Wanna know why? 2.8 to slightly over 3x gravity and fall damage implementation that would be perfect in 1x gravity, or 1.5x, or even 2x...and 0.6x... But we're always under much higher gravity and thus we can't have cool things like low gravity combat. Because of a "Half-baked system" PGI came up with, because "It didn't feel right."
Ever asked: Why would heavy mechs stay in the air so long?
Here, Kodiak. Notice how long it stays in the air. Why is this? Sure you could say the thrusters, however this is actually a real thing in physics called momentum. It needs to change from an upward trajectory to a falling one, which means it needs to lose all upward momentum before it start to fall, and then gain it as it falls. The more mass it has, the more resistance it has to a change in momentum. Check this out.
It's scientifically freaking accurate to stay in the air during the momentum shift phase. It would make jumps longer. It would make them viable as well for jumping distances of "150 meters" or "180 meters" as in the Sarnas, even if yoru jump height was only 30 meters or less. In fact to reach a distance of 180 meters from a stationary position, you're supposed to reach a vertical height of 21 meters. Wait, this implies both FORWARD and VERTICAL momentum!? Zoh-mah-gerd! Also, you don't get very high. But you didn't have to since mechs were 14.4 meters or shorter. (DERP!) Wait for it, wait for it. Oh god, the scale came back! But Tom Hanks, we're using 18 meter tall mechs! Well now PGI, derp. But wait, there's more! Staying in the air so long means that when you poptart -- which btw you won't poptart in place since the minimum forward travel in a jump is 30-ish meters, where right now it's usually between 4 and 15 meters in MWO... -- you'd also have the issue that you would stay in the air long enough for everyone to shoot you.
Quote
Plain silly. Both Endo and Ferro expansion goes inwards, which is why they occupy critical slots in the first place. IS mechs had both upgrades and many were upgraded with them when rediscovered, and it never had any adverse effects on their profile. Clan mechs were larger simply because they never cared about producing combat-unworthy mechs to begin with. The fact, that their mechs had larger profiles might have been the reason behind the differences between critical slot sizes of upgrades and weapons - both might have been occupying less critical space simply because relatively Clan mechs had more internal space to begin with.
"Expansion" means to become larger.
Can you become larger inward? That's called imploding. That would be a black hole.
I figure you mean "under the armor." Sure, Endo could do this at the risk of consuming space if there is space on the inside of the mech to consume. If there isn't, since you're likely loading it with larger and heavier weaponry, then that mech is going to 'grow' in size as that is the definition of expansion.
Armor growing inward though.. heh heh, hah hah. If you take a stack of 5 pieces of paper and add another piece of paper to it, did your pile shrink (grow inward / implode) or increase in size (grow outward / expand)? Sorry but armor has to be mounted and you can't really shave off what parts of the skeleton hold the armor to put thicker but equivelant armor on without a 'size increase'..without compromising the very ability to use that armor. Thus it grows outward unconditionally. Such would also be the case of adding additional armor to a machine.
So a more armored variant would be thicker than a less armored variant. More armor = bigger target. Thicker armor, even if thicker by virtue of Ferro instead of standard, also equals bigger target. Endo, bigger target.
Endo is larger because while the metal is thinner and lighter, they have to take multiple sheets of it (due to being very 'flexible' and thus unusable) and have to fill it in with some sort of foam substance to keep it from flopping back and forth to create stable limbs. They used Cardboard as the example. This results in a 'larger, but lighter' product.
To use another example they said, take a large stick. Try to break it with just your hands. That's standard armor. Now take a small stick, snaps like nothing. Take a bunch of small sticks, and you'll find to get the same strength as that large stick, the girth of the small sticks bundled together will always be larger than the large stick.
In the end, Endo Steel skeletons are 'thicker' than standard skeletons, they are also just as strong and lighter. Tech Manual Page 34 explicitly states this.
TechManual Page 34 said:
Endo-Steel
Endo-steel internal structures are basically the same as standard
structures in layout, but diff er in materials. Endo-steel structures utilize
endomorphic steel (hence their name). This endo-steel is much
stronger than the steel of standard BattleMech frames, which allows
their structural walls to be thinner and lighter for the same strength.
The thinner walls would make the bones less stiff for the same diameter
of bone, so endo-steel bones have to be noticeably larger.
Yes? I can hear you— …No. Stiff ness and strength aren’t the
same qualities. A thick cardboard panel is stiff er, less prone to
buckling, than a thin sheet of metal even though the metal is
much stronger. Endo-steel is stronger, but because it is thinner,
it runs into buckling problems unless you make the bones wider.
That’s how cardboard turns thin sheets of paper into a stiff structure:
it makes the structure thicker with the corrugated paper between
two outer sheets. Endo-steel uses a larger foam core inside
the thinner shell.
Now, because of its composition, endo-steel is produced in
zero-G to avoid chemical segregation. Er, that is, some of the alloying
agents want to separate like oil and water and thus make
the steel brittle and weak, but they’ll stay mixed in zero-G until
solidifi cation. Structural designers also make endo-steel’s foam
core in zero-G, where foams form a more regular pore size and
thus have superior strength. Zero-G processing makes endosteel
expensive, but the elimination of the fi ber layer allows it to
be produced faster than standard structures.
So, those are the bones of ’Mechs. Next: the joints that string
them together.
Bigger, thicker, fatter. You don't get bigger by shrinking. You don't get thicker by imploding. You don't get fatter by 'growing inward'.
Covered? On the same page? Oversized mechs typically come with Ferro, Endo-Steel or both. Of course you shouldn't be able to change it regardless of the situation, but if you can change it... then it should matter-of-factually change the size of your mech as it is a complete skeleton replacement. Sorry but that petite dame of a mech is gonna be 'big boned' if you go with endo-steel. Fact of life, with good game design based on the source material.
It should also be mentioned, Clan mechs are expressly stated to have less space, so while the idea is interesting that their equipment takes less critical slots because Clan mechs are "bigger", it is not the canonized reasoning. Clan mechs lack even a bed to sleep in or a bathroom, unlike IS mechs which have these, 7 days of food, 2 weeks of water, and in some cases a personal shower. It is an interesting hypothesis. However I aleady know the reasoning stated by the Tech Manual is that they use endo steel in most of their equipment. This isn't something the IS can do because the IS can barely get their hands on endo steel due to the construction methods and conditions required and expense. They also cannot build it as efficiently as the Clans can. The IS LBX is so expensive because it is the first IS weapon system to have endo steel used in the construction, which also made it very difficult to acquire. This is why it is one ton lighter than the AC/10 for the IS, but the Clan version compared to the UAC/10 is identical in weight since both use Endo steel.
Quote
It also just as well can be attributed to modular nature of Omni-mechs, where you need specific detachable sections to contain whole equipment elements, while IS mech could feature equpment attached in arbitrary fashion, potentially protruding from one component to another being internally hardwired. Same is true for Clan Battlemechs, which can justify why most of them should be bulkier compared to original IS models depending on a given chassis, covered by an expanded wireframe to carry equipment that is lighter, but just as large.
An interesting view indeed and primarily true. Though in some cases the Clan Battlemechs are less bulky and in most instances sleeker, thinner.
But since you had mentioned it earlier, Battlemechs have a feature that isn't mentioned in tabletop but is pretty apparent in the lore. Internal and external 'critical slots'. The Atlas for example, the D(avion), RS(?), D-DC (Davion dual cockpit) all have an LRM-20 in the form of a hip-mounted 5-tube rapid reload pack (that locks, fires, and reloads to repeat in 2.5 second intervals). The Atlas K(urita) removed the chest-mounted SRM-6 and put a full size LRM-20 there, though in this case they didn't bother removing the hollow hippack for this new variant (which was created initially through a refit). The Atlas C(omstar), Atlas S(teiner)2 also have the full LRM-20 mount; each splitting 10 tubes on either side of the torso. A far better example comes from the Hunchback. The typical HBKs such as the 4H and 4G have a noticeable drum on the left torso. This is actually an external ammunition mount design for fast 'swapping' during combat, though that aspect is an afterthought to the simple fact that the Hunchback was "too small" to store the ammunition within the skeleton. They compare it with the Commando as "roughly the same height" and "beefy." What makes this interesting is the HBK-4SP is supposed to have a smaller drum mounted on the rear-center torso from which to feed its SRM packs... and the 4P is called the "Swayback" due to a smaller side. What if the smaller side is actually the drum being removed due to the fact that there is no ammo on a 4P?
I would have this be part of the design, so that mechs that are smaller such as the Hunchback would have external crits as well as internal ones and the two would be treated differently. Thus an advantage to a 'bulkier' mech with more internal space even if it is the same weight would be having all (or more) of the crits being 'internal' and thus better protected. But rather than random chance, I would require players to hit specific parts to try and trigger specific crits. Say you want to knock out a leg actuator on a mech, you would need to aim specifically for the leg actuator and hit it consistently to take it out. Need to disable that AC/20 on the Atlas? Well unlike the AC/20 on a Hunchback, half of it sticks out of the Atlas so aim for that barrel and blast away. Keep in mind with lore-based ACs, unless it's a burst-fire type or on a cassette change you won't have any time to fire back if you're the twisting sort (or you'd have to figure out how to fire while twisting) because belt-fed AC types have no reload delays.
(Belt-fed versus burst / cassette fire ACs compared in the form of Bren versus MG-42)
Before I move on, note that the designers don't really think of why things are the way they are. Consider the Blackjack.
In almost every iteration of the Blackjack and most definitely every official version of it, there's that goofy ring around the side torsos. Ever wonder about that? Believe it or not there is a reason for it. The Blackjack stores all of its ammunition in a single bin located in the center torso above the engine (or below; but the original illustration has the ammo above the engine, below and to the rear of the cockpit. This 'ring' going across each side torso is actually the belt-feed for the Whirlwind/L 30mm or Whirlwind/2 40mm AC/2s (depending on whether it is a BJ-1 or BJ-1DC). Ammo runs through those and as such, provided you have a weapon with enough penetration, you should get a through armor critical on ammo aiming for that area. Of course ideally a BJ is going to be behind cover, keeping that region protected.
The Dragon's large belly is to have space for both the engine and missile launcher in a mech that is "Squat" and just over 10 meters tall (note that a Jenner with its incredibly long legs and small body is also just over 10 meters tall with far less surface area to hit).
Keep in mind... 10 meters.
Quote
No pelvis. Period. If that element wouldn't be ignored by MWO, PGI would just produce an unplayable, constipated mech that nobody would ever care to touch.
If PGI produced it, yes.
There are tanks from World War II without turrets. Very usable. There are tanks in the modern fields of Russia that are extremely viable.
In fact, in game form these tanks are very viable as being turretless typically -- and in reality -- allows for the use of larger cannons which in turn mean bigger shells with stronger armor penetration capabilities. Effectively creating 'tank destroyers'.
If a competent group, such as the original FASA group who created that scale, were responsible for it... The first thing you will notice in every instance of a mech without a pelvis is that the mech is 'SMALL' That's right. They are smaller. Even if they are taller, their available surface area to target is much smaller than the average mech. Catapults (Stunt-legged) are really short, 8 to 9 meters tall. Even their stilted versions (11-12 meters tall) have narrower bodies and though the arms appear to be smaller their size never actually changed, just the length of the legs which also get thinner. So even when taller, they are 'smaller' and harder to hit.
Alex -- the MWO artist -- knew this and very visually drew the Catapult with the intention of it being as tall or shorter than the Jenner...with a lot of bulk to compensate. PGI had a mentality similar to yours, and declared it should be 15 meters because "Heavies should be taller than lights."
Thus, Russ or someone else critiqued Alex's drawing, resulting in the original monstroscity that is the Catapult.
Those rungs were "huge" because the mech was meant to be small and bulky yet still 65 tons. Other artists, such as Bishop Steiner and First Battletech Novelist William H. Keith Jr., also understand this and it can be seen in their scales. Scale didn't really get out of whack until in the 90s around when FASA and Wizkidz traded hands for the Battletech rights.
Lets face it.
Wizkidz had some artists who were completely bonkers.
Jumping back to competent design and no-pelvis mechs... In all iterations of the tabletop, the official art and the lore... The lack of a Lower Arm Actuator did not restrict movement of the horizontal nature. The shoulder actuator covered vertical movement and in some cases limited horizontal movement. The upper actuator does exclusively horizontal movement. The lower actuator is an elbow if one exists. Having a lower arm actuator, however, means an extra series of muscles that makes arm flipping impossible as it would twist the Myomers (muscles) too far. This isn't a case that matters with just the upper arm actuator because the muscles effectively end at the upper arm with no excess. Mechs with hyper extending actuators simply have elbows that can extend to a second pivot point and rotate backwards.
The TL;DR version of the paragraph above is that Novas can have functioning left/right arm movement and still perfectly follow the source material even without lower arm actuators. Limited torso leaning/twisting akin to MW2. You also have the arm-flipping, which a competent designer would work in.
Thus while Mech A might have a torso with 60 degrees torso rotation in either direction (if you take tabletop literally the average mech has 45 degrees twist in either direction making a total range of only 90 degrees.) and 120 degrees arm arc (60 in each direction). That's a total 180 degrees of reach.
Nova, with just upper arm actuators and no pelvis on which to torso twist, would have a range of 120 degrees arm arc in front, flip 180 to aim behind, again still have 120 degrees of arm arc, and due to the flip nature be able to fire 360 degrees vertically. Just counting the two 120s though, and it has 240 degrees of horizontal arm arc range. Who needs torso twist? Just need good windows and a good back camera.
To emphasise, even if you limit horizontal arm range to half without lower arm actuators (I wouldn't, considering how the lower arm actuators actually connect on the Nova), you'd have 30 degrees of horizontal arm arc in either direction (so 60 total) and then flip, another 60 total. 120 degrees total. That really is quite playable. Again though I wouldn't do that because the real reason you want to bring lower arm actuators is to increase the ease of standing up after being knocked for 20 damage.
Which considering how I would do weapons (as you might have noticed from the laser example), isn't as easy as "pull trigger." Short of two PPCs or two Gauss Rifles, the only way you're getting it without having to be insanely close (with an AC/20 or twin AC/10s) is by firing a plethora of missiles and landing them all in roughly a similar enough area to 'tip' the enemy mech.
So yes. "Unplayable, constipated mech."
You meant to say "Very playable meta monstroscity." You meant to say "Difficult to hit, small, arm-flip capability, versatile and has character to boot?! Sign me up!"
I have to ask you: Do you not put any thought into the possibilities of good design? Or is the fact that PGI is designing this really limiting the scope of what you believe could be done just because PGI's competence level is pretty lackluster? Keep in mind that PGI is very inexperienced and with a limited range of personnel, they can't do any actual research or think of how something would work beyond "Listen guys we're on the clock, time is money."
Quote
What ties together... what are you talking about? Are you sober?
I got drunk once when I was 18 when a friend was killed in a hit and run. 12 shots of hard, mixed liquor in a shotglass game with some of his other friends. For the next 3 hours I had quite some nasty puking sprees. Never touched it again, so yes I'm sober.
As I had stated, everything in Battletech ties together. Battletech has infantry, vehicles, tanks, conventional aircraft, aerotech, mechs. Weapon systems have individual cooling jackets, variants, availability, etc. Mechs have targeting systems, sensor suites, communication systems, nuances like how you eject and issues (example, exposed actuators on a Quickdraw makes the legs an easy target for infantry attack swarms) and perks (rear mounted weapons, or in the Thunderbolt's case the ability to track and attack two targets at the same time, in the Locust's case the CT turret). It all ties together. If you drop any of it out, other things start to collapse and abuse can be had. For example Ferro became "worthless" because repair and rearm was removed. Repair and rearm was broken because there was no living economy affected by what players did; beyond this R&R was further broken by the sheer amount of ammo consumed during a match, caused by the doubling of armor and structure, which in turn required players to have double heatsinks to even function, XL engines to carry the weapons and ammo, insane amounts of ammo and heatsinks... It all adds up and each broken or missing thing creates another broken or missing thing.
Quote
Cataphract 4X is the only variant, that features ballistic weapons on either sides of the chassis, which means, that it requires additional ammo-transfer routes traced under the skin.
In general, PGI determines the engine limits by the original engine rating modified by the amount and type of weapon hardpoints and equipment.
Originally the engine limit was a set amount of ratings above the initial rating. We know from the Cataphract 4x never having changed that it was 45 for heavies; I also know it was originally 50 for mediums (changed to 60 soon after and 75 in just this ONE case), 55 for lights (Jenner has never changed) and 40 for assaults as demonstrated by the mechs of the time.
Thus, it has nothing to do with equipment originally. It is specifically a condition of a very simple, very unincompassing, very incomplete rule PGI made up. The legacy material would state the Cataphract could use 140, 210, 280, 350. Any of these engines.
PGI's made up rules allow for the other Cataphracts to have full armor, much higher engine limits (340) for every other variant. It used to be 325, but at some point they got bumped up to 340 on all but the 4X.
The 4X's traits in exchange for this engine limit... don't exist in MWO as something unique for it.
And if the 4X had a stock build with an XL engine, I could fit a 255 without any issue and still have extra weight with the stock build. The 280 XL would only require me to get rid of 2 points of armor and 1 ton of ammo and I could have it, get the 340 engine speed and still be the same Cataphract 4X.
But a broken system is broken. No the statement isn't generic, just a fact that can apply to so many of the systems that PGI uses.
Additional ammo tracers? I think you mean feeds. Aside from this, the additional 'tracers' would be going into the arms from the torsos; the removed cannon on the right torso gives plenty of room there and on the opposite side, well the lack of a cannon there leaves the room wide open. Also keep in mind an XL engine is 'bigger' and 'fatter' than a standard and I could fit an XL 280 engine in at the sacrifice of a single ton of ammo. Lose one of the unprecedented 5 ammo bins and get an engine that has some drive!
What we got versus the trade off wasn't fair. But when the system is incomplete because PGI picked and chose what to put in and what to make up, there's our result.
The real problem is that PGI is using "Design original mech" rules with some crap they smudged in to rub out the rough edges and said "These are our customizing rules." No. These are completely bonkers. The hardpoints don't make sense, the ability to change a skeleton and not what a hardpoint is... complete madness the prior is significantly harder to do in Battletech than the latter with a difference being from weeks to a month and a half. In Battletech, "Refit" rules under a campaign were a lot more strict, creating a wonderful universe where for the most part cheese builds for the most part couldn't exist so long as you begin with canon mech variants, at least not without high investments of time and cbills. Yet even within these refit rules, the ability to change anything is there but the difficulty curb for the ease of swapping an SRM-6 for an LRM-15 is very different than swapping a large laser with Mech Mortar/8. The question is where to put the compromise. PGI kept it far too exploitable. But would the full system be too daunting to use? Sadly I don't have the answer here, but I do know that the full system and any compromise would be meaningless without repair and rearm and other factors such as 'scale' for changes of armor or structure to help balance it out and prevent "Always use Endo" metas so that instead "Endo steel" is a legitimate risk/reward choice.
Quote
Empty statement. Examples please. Oh, and please provide an example, that endures your own "but... but its bulkier" logic, because I won't waste my time with a person, who knocks out his own arguments repeatedly.
Examples.
Panther, Wolfhound, Firestarter.
Compare to..
All 40, 45, and some 50 tonners here.
12 meters for many of those 40 to 45 tonners, almost 13 meters for Wolfhound and Panther, 12 meters for Firestarter. My point here is that you will have, even under volumetric scale, mechs of the same height at different weights with different girths. Thus the "Ice Ferret as tall as a Warhawk" example you had was pretty pointless, as with the volumetric scaling in MWO, we have 35 tonners as tall as 50 tonners like the Hunchback. It's the exact same thing, except generally most of the mechs are bigger in MWO than in Battletech.
You say its an empty statement and self-defeating, I was pointing out that either way you have the same issue. I also never said I had a problem with the Executioner's size to an Atlas; the Executioner is taller and I stated it the first time the Executioner is the tallest mech in Battletech up until either 3055 or 3065. My emphasis was on the overall scale of mechs that are too big. Oh and don't forget, "But bulkier." You should open your eyes.
You used the Ice Ferret and Warhawk being the same height as your argument to why the "legacy" scale was unusable, but the volumetric rescale does the exact same thing. Keep in mind that in both cases the Battletech scale and MWO scale, there are outlayers done intentionally. In Battletech, the outlayers All have Ferro, Endo, or in the extreme cases Both, which makes these mechs 'better' than similar mechs of the same weight without those advantages. In MWO, the outlayers are the ones PGI deems "too good." Eye any mech that seems "too tall" and take note of its equipment. In the case of Warhawk versus Dire Wolf, the Warhawk (85 tons) has both Ferro and Endo steel. The Dire Wolf (100 tons) has standard and standard. The Hellbringer, 65 tons has Ferro and Endo, the Summoner 70 tons has Ferro and standard. This remains an edge case for almost every comparison -- the only time it doesn't fit has a visual explanation right there, the Firemoth's arms are over the head while the Mist Lynx has arms at its sides, and height measures up to the highest point on the mech.
Just a question. When you have thought about what this game needs and how to improve it, on which rank was the need of a rescale for you people?
My feeling exactly, there were only a few mechs that needed some attention, the Quickdraw, Catapult, then debatably the Awesome & Thunderbolt. An entire mech rescale was such a time sink, the Jagermech is perfect! It didn't need re-scaling and knee bending. I mean can't we fix the CW dropdeck bugs or figure out why mechs loose all paint sceme colors at long distance first? Why are all mechs grey or black at distance, snow camo is useless.
wow thanks... It does kinda look like they are very similar in size no? Now i'm not saying NERF cicada.. But according to that picture, shouldn't the cicada have grown just a little bit?
Not really. Cicada not only very similar in size, but also in its function. It doesnt get much of a bonus for being 5 tons heavier. Majority of that difference goes into making it as fast as the Light mech, and the mech itself is essentialy ~70% legs. Now, if PGI would decide to add other 40-tonners, like Clint, Assassin or Sentinel, they would get a lower engine rating and heavier loadout options, but would also be taller, bulkier or broader respectively.
Quote
I will add, that seeing i play a cicada a lot, and they are very similar in size, with the 35 toners being faster in most cases.. perhaps they aren't in such a bad place anyway. I do think that people are blowing the light size out of proportion though.. while sure it maybe a half inch at 30m.. most of the time when you are fighting it will only end up being a very small difference in the end.
Indeed. People who argue against new scalings are just sandwitching their arrogance between personal bias and lack of perspective. Until changes go live, there's nothing to brag about.
Again, my only misagreement is that they've avoided adjusting Trebuchet's geometry. It has the same issue as the Awesome and might have helped some volume relocation for not being a running dartboard.
Koniving, on 21 June 2016 - 12:29 AM, said:
. . .
I'm not answering that. Not because I don't want, but because I can't. Too much rambling outlet and too little of a coherent opinion. Do you even realise I cannot do anything with that?
The rescale is about what I'd expect. There were a few surprises...
* Catapult was way smaller than I thought it would be. I like it, but I wonder if it is a tiny bit too small. Maybe that is to help makeup for it's paltry hard points in most variants.
* Dragon a bit bigger than I thought.
* Was surprised to see the 45 ton mechs to hardly shrink considering how fragile they are.
* I thought the Adder was shrinking for sure. That was surprising.
* I didn't think that many light mechs would grow in size. Even the Urbanmech...like it needed to get bigger.
Overall though, it seemed about right. Assaults and heavies generally grew like I thought they would.
Even after all that though, most adjustments seemed like small tweaks, so I don't think the impact will be too hard felt. Maybe some lights might have an issue (like the Jenner or Firestarter), but hey, they still have bad hit reg to fall back on lol.
P.S. Nice to see the Awesome lost the love handles.
Not really. Cicada not only very similar in size, but also in its function. It doesnt get much of a bonus for being 5 tons heavier. Majority of that difference goes into making it as fast as the Light mech, and the mech itself is essentialy ~70% legs. Now, if PGI would decide to add other 40-tonners, like Clint, Assassin or Sentinel, they would get a lower engine rating and heavier loadout options, but would also be taller, bulkier or broader respectively.
Indeed. People who argue against new scalings are just sandwitching their arrogance between personal bias and lack of perspective. Until changes go live, there's nothing to brag about.
Again, my only misagreement is that they've avoided adjusting Trebuchet's geometry. It has the same issue as the Awesome and might have helped some volume relocation for not being a running dartboard.
I'm not answering that. Not because I don't want, but because I can't. Too much rambling outlet and too little of a coherent opinion. Do you even realise I cannot do anything with that?
Yea i can see your point... Now i am wondering how the Spider, and Commando are gonna stack up to the Firestarter/raven
i have Locust, commando, spider, raven, firestarter and cicada.. So I'm certainly going to have fun playing with all those mechs. A few i have never even gotton to master, like spiders, and the firestarters and locusts i have recently bought, but have not played with yet.. But as a long time Commando/raven/Cicada pilot, i don't think i will struggle.. To me the spider and firestarters will still have their good points.. Though the locusts might really shine.. I just hope my commando gets some ammo quirks sooner than later, because running out of ammo in that thing is actually a think in todays game with so many 80-100 ton mechs you have to kill.
Can't give a verdict until i've actually played the patch a bit tonight, but so far the re-scale makes sense, looking forward to the quirk hunters/crutch crowd crying in the forum loudly.
My verdict is mixed.
I am glad for the Nova. I understand the need to enlarge the Crab. But i am rather unhappy with how things went for the Wolfhound, Firestarter, Jenner and especially Panther. These one-alpha-to-the-side-and-youre-dead mechs will have a hard time surviving until the new heat scale mechanic that supposedly fixes Alphawarrior is out. Luckily I'll have the Phoenix Hawk to spend time with now. And I'll force myself to like it, no matter how good it'll turn out to be ^^
16
JC Daxion, on 20 June 2016 - 06:13 PM, said:
