93 replies to this topic

[Navid A1]

With the new re-scale around the corner, I decided to do a small analysis on the scale chart they provided:





Now right to the point.... the comparisons are done using 2 different aspects of a mech:
1- Average volume in cubic pixels
2- Average front-side visible surface in square pixels

The numbers are based on each mech's pixel count from all top / side / front projections:

x = top pixel count
y = front pixel count
z = side pixel count

The average dimensions and surface and volume is according to the following:








The comparisons are done for 2 cases: 1- Entire mech and 2-Just the torso area


1- Entire Mech:

a) Average Volume Comparison:



Verdict:
Reserving this as i go through the numbers

b- Average Visible Front-Side Surface Comparison ("How Easy to Shoot" factor)



Verdict:
Reserving this as i go through the numbers

Extra Data:
Front and side surface pixel count:

Spoiler

2- Torso Comparison:

Average Volumeand Average Front-Side Visible Surface:






Front torso surface to side torso surface ratio:
Can be used to get an idea about how much of your mech you can shield by torso twisting





Feel free to discuss...

Edited by Navid A1, 18 June 2016 - 08:45 PM.

[Solid Alexei]

Ow God please change that font to standard... Eyebleed just trying to read first couple of lines hahaha
But, a very comprehensive analysis! Thank you!

[Bishop Steiner]

Pixel count... simply is not a particularly accurate measure. Too easy to read into what one wants. But even so, while not a perfect match across, the general trend would appear to say mission accomplished. Even though the KGC seems a bit of an outlier for example... since most of it's pixel count boost is from the top down view.... it actually impacts the game effectiveness very little (mind you during a new LRMageddon, that might change)

[Navid A1]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 June 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

Pixel count... simply is not a particularly accurate measure. Too easy to read into what one wants. But even so, while not a perfect match across, the general trend would appear to say mission accomplished. Even though the KGC seems a bit of an outlier for example... since most of it's pixel count boost is from the top down view.... it actually impacts the game effectiveness very little (mind you during a new LRMageddon, that might change)

Pixel count was kinda the only thing i had with regards to actual numbers.

And you are correct about the KGC... most of its volume comes from its vast top side. However it has less average side-front surface than a kodiak.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Gargoyle is now the second smallest assault mech.

Wow.

[Bishop Steiner]

Navid A1, on 18 June 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

Pixel count was kinda the only thing i had with regards to actual numbers.

And you are correct about the KGC... most of its volume comes from its vast top side. However it has less average side-front surface than a kodiak.

oh, I'm not knocking your efforts, but it does someone point out some of our limitations, in comparing, and why that list some people hold as "gospel" doesn't mean much to me. But then, I'm firmly pro volume/pro uniformity, so there's that, too.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 18 June 2016 - 03:34 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

Looking at your charts, it looks like Clan got screwed. At nearly every weight where there is a Clan Mech, it either the biggest or one of the biggest.

Having said that to stave off the IS complaints, I believe that these numbers re-inforce that the re-scale is pretty darn accurate even using the partial data that you used.

Thanks for putting the effort into creating this comparison.

[Andi Nagasia]

looks good, though probably not 100% having it 95-% is still very Good,
it seems like most of those complaining about the rescaling didnt like that things got bigger,
they seem to have wanted Everything to get Smaller, but this is for Uniformity not balance,

id rather have Each Mech be the Right size to each other and the world,
than try to use Scale as a Balancing tool, if so mechs would be way Too Small,

[Afuldan McKronik]

A few outliers, but as Bishop has said, how much is top down chunkiness?

Almost every mech has an outlier in just pure pixels, but that doesn't ALSO show up in frontal area with the same mechs, other than two outstanders. Kitfox and King Crab. They both have more overall pixels and frontal area pixels than other mechs.

There are also others at varying weights, but these two stand out most from others in their weight classes in both categories.

[Bishop Steiner]

Andi Nagasia, on 18 June 2016 - 03:54 PM, said:

looks good, though probably not 100% having it 95-% is still very Good,
it seems like most of those complaining about the rescaling didnt like that things got bigger,
they seem to have wanted Everything to get Smaller, but this is for Uniformity not balance,

id rather have Each Mech be the Right size to each other and the world,
than try to use Scale as a Balancing tool, if so mechs would be way Too Small,

We start using scale to "fix" bad robots, the Archer, Victor, Awesome and Summoner would all have to be the size of the Spider. The old Spider.

So yes, let's use scale to fix bad robots!!!!

[Afuldan McKronik]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 June 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

We start using scale to "fix" bad robots, the Archer, Victor, Awesome and Summoner would all have to be the size of the Spider. The old Spider.

So yes, let's use scale to fix bad robots!!!!

Eh, it gives PGI a baseline for balancing, as both of us have pointed out that has been missing before.

[Y E O N N E]

There's way too much dead-space in the cube to get any useful conclusions out of this. If PGI executed their own method correctly, every 'Mech for a given weight should have the same volume, period, and there's really nothing to discuss outside of continuing the argument that many 'Mech profiles have either become or remained barn doors.

[Bishop Steiner]

Afuldan McKronik, on 18 June 2016 - 04:16 PM, said:

Eh, it gives PGI a baseline for balancing, as both of us have pointed out that has been missing before.

Oh, I fully agree. I'm using absurdity to point out the flaw I the concept of scale add a balancing tool.

[Afuldan McKronik]

Yeonne Greene, on 18 June 2016 - 04:25 PM, said:

There's way too much dead-space in the cube to get any useful conclusions out of this. If PGI executed their own method correctly, every 'Mech for a given weight should have the same volume, period, and there's really nothing to discuss outside of continuing the argument that many 'Mech profiles have either become or remained barn doors.

While I would agree, there is also the statement of done by feel. Which is what led to this entire rescale in the first place.

Which I am not saying is a bad thing™, just wondering if only some mechs, maybe the outliers in pure pixel count, were done by the formula, then someone went "Well thats just silly small. Lets make an adjustment here and here."

Edited by Afuldan McKronik, 18 June 2016 - 04:34 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

PGI should still take the rescale further. The mechs are all still to tall. Awesome is 16m tall on that. Atlas is like 18m tall.

Mechs should go down to their proper heights.

[Y E O N N E]

Afuldan McKronik, on 18 June 2016 - 04:29 PM, said:

While I would agree, there is also the statement of done by feel. Which is what led to this entire rescale in the first place.

Honestly, I still don't think it matters. Now that all the 'Mechs are on a much more consistent scale, for better or worse, the only thing that matters is implementing changes which mitigate size and/or shape deficiencies.

Like, the Blackjack has (and has always had) a little bit of barn-door synrome going on, which is why it needed the agility and structure buffs (both of which combined to make it survivable...notice how few BJs run around these days). The Vindicator actually has a superior profile now, much narrower torso parts. The Awesome remains a barn door, it just has a lovely waist now. The JagerMech is a barn door. The Victor is a barn door. Assaults are all barn doors, and if they weren't before they certainly are now.

[Navid A1]

Some extra comparisons:

Front and side surface pixel count:

Spoiler

Yeonne Greene, on 18 June 2016 - 04:25 PM, said:

There's way too much dead-space in the cube to get any useful conclusions out of this. If PGI executed their own method correctly, every 'Mech for a given weight should have the same volume, period, and there's really nothing to discuss outside of continuing the argument that many 'Mech profiles have either become or remained barn doors.

While this is correct to some degree... front/side pixel count can at least give you an idea about how large a mech is with regards to other mechs in its weight class.

As an example... the comparisons for the kitfox pretty much confirms what you can conclude just by looking at the kitfox size with regards to a spider for example

Edited by Navid A1, 18 June 2016 - 04:46 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

re scale needed to be done,

many thought everything was ganna get smaller, well PGI decided to make things bigger instead,
Perhaps they felt to make Mechs smaller would make those Mechs Not scaled correctly to the world,
im fine with Bigger mechs, as long as they are scaled correctly to each other and the World,

its not the End of the World,

[Afuldan McKronik]

Navid A1, on 18 June 2016 - 04:42 PM, said:

Some extra comparisons:

Front and side surface pixel count:

Spoiler

While this is correct to some degree... front/side pixel count can at least give you an idea about how large a mech is with regards to other mechs in its weight class.

Which still has outliers, combining all of the data. Viper has more pixels, which I do understand doesnt equal size, versus thr Cicada, in every single way. Ergo, thicker, less "holes", or something. Which will make it easier to hit versus a Cicada. Or am I missing something?

[Hit the Deck]

Yeonne Greene, on 18 June 2016 - 04:25 PM, said:

If PGI executed their own method correctly, every 'Mech for a given weight should have the same volume, period, and there's really nothing to discuss outside of continuing the argument that many 'Mech profiles have either become or remained barn doors.

On the contrary, this opened up a new topic on how to design a better 'Mech, i.e. to minimize surface area in a given volume. That could mean modifying the shape of current robots but it's more like how to vote for future 'Mechs now that you know (tall) humanoid robots have unnecessarily large surface area and stick out like a sore thumb!

Vote for squat, reverse jointed, stocky 'Mechs!

But just let's skip that, could we get something which resembles a box, like a tank for example?