93 replies to this topic

[cazidin]

I've been thinking... how long before PGI decides to quirk volume?

[Mcgral18]

cazidin, on 24 June 2016 - 07:10 AM, said:

I've been thinking... how long before PGI decides to quirk volume?

Technically already here, in the form of NegaQuirks (and missiles mainly) from dynamic weapon geometry.

[Cy Mitchell]

Stefka Kerensky, on 24 June 2016 - 05:35 AM, said:

The fact is that a looooooooooooooooooot of pilots predicted it was going to suck... I bought it anyway, becuase it's my fav unseen.
So, why cannot Paul have...the "common sense" to put the proper quirks, even without 1 month of datas?
As already said, at least the same of the BJ...even tough, being taller and with bigger arms, PXH would need far more structure quirks.

I love the irony in this.

I know the Mech was going to suck but it is my favorite Mech so i bought it anyway. Now, Paul make it powerful with quirks. Waaaaah! You didn't make it powerful enough. It really does suck!

WTF?

[Ghogiel]

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

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)

Pretty much all I see of a KGC is the top of it... looking down at it from te great height of a light mechs cockpit

[STEF_]

Rampage, on 24 June 2016 - 08:39 AM, said:

I love the irony in this.

I know the Mech was going to suck but it is my favorite Mech so i bought it anyway. Now, Paul make it powerful with quirks. Waaaaah! You didn't make it powerful enough. It really does suck!

WTF?

Where did I say powerful?

I said one step behind BJ

Try again, tard

[Cy Mitchell]

Stefka Kerensky, on 24 June 2016 - 08:55 AM, said:

Where did I say powerful?

I said one step behind BJ

Try again, tard

And you think the BJ is not powerful. It is one of the Meta top Tier Mechs.

[Luscious Dan]

Blackjack has been taken down a peg or two with the structure bonuses being cut in half. Some of its weapon quirks got taken down a notch as well. Still good but not the meta god it once was. Its odd engine caps and some variants not having JJs start to come back into play now that it's not super tanky for its size.

[ScarecrowES]

Just a note for those folks who are using mechlab pics for comparison shots... You may not be aware, though many of us are, that the view of mechs in the mechlab do not accurately represent the absolute scaling of mechs, or the scale of mechs relative to each other. PGI noted this in the patch notes.

You cannot use that view to make accurate comparisons of mechs.

You'd have to use orthographics produced from the modeling software itself.

[ScarecrowES]

Afuldan McKronik, on 18 June 2016 - 10:20 PM, said:

Why does the Viper have more pixel count than the Cicada in literally everything? Is it an anomaly?

This one is actually pretty easy. Pixel count would be a reflection of surface area, while scaling is done volumetrically. The more efficient a particular volume is, the lower its ratio of surface area will be. Centralizing your mass together is more efficient than spreading your mass out in many smaller volumes.

Looking at the Cicada vs Viper, the Cicada has a much more volume-efficient shape. It centralizes most of it's mass in a very solid and centralized torso - while the Viper spreads out much of its mass into various appendages, all which will have small volumes relative to surface area.

So the Cicada has a smaller pixel count (surface area) because all its mass is tight together. The Catapult is like this too. It has no superfluous volumes. Everything it has is tightly located and centralized. It's mass is all squished together, which makes it have a very positive volume to surface area ratio.

You'll actually see this across all mechs... mechs with tighter, more dense designs tend to appear smaller than similar mechs with more spread-out designs.

[Mcgral18]

ScarecrowES, on 24 June 2016 - 10:43 AM, said:

Just a note for those folks who are using mechlab pics for comparison shots... You may not be aware, though many of us are, that the view of mechs in the mechlab do not accurately represent the absolute scaling of mechs, or the scale of mechs relative to each other. PGI noted this in the patch notes.

You cannot use that view to make accurate comparisons of mechs.

You'd have to use orthographics produced from the modeling software itself.

Not true, the camera and mech locations are the same


The issue is perspective, not position


For similar size mechs (not LOLcust VS Gladbag), it gives you an accurate enough picture

[ScarecrowES]

Mcgral18, on 24 June 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

Not true, the camera and mech locations are the same


The issue is perspective, not position


For similar size mechs (not LOLcust VS Gladbag), it gives you an accurate enough picture

Hence why I used the qualifier "accurate." You want to compare a Jenner to a Raven, you'll probably get a reasonable comparison out of that.

But the mechlab won't work for this comparison, for instance:

[Metus regem]

ScarecrowES, on 24 June 2016 - 01:51 PM, said:

Hence why I used the qualifier "accurate." You want to compare a Jenner to a Raven, you'll probably get a reasonable comparison out of that.

But the mechlab won't work for this comparison, for instance:

Turn them sideways, and you'll see the Pixi is really thin from the side, unlike the Catapult....

[ScarecrowES]

Metus regem, on 24 June 2016 - 02:07 PM, said:

Turn them sideways, and you'll see the Pixi is really thin from the side, unlike the Catapult....

Haha... that's not what I'm saying. I know the Catapult should be tiny, and I agree with the approach that brought it there. I'm saying the mechlab view doesn't render scaling accurately. So you can't use what you see in mechlab to compare mechs.

So if you want to say, for instance, that the Phoenix Hawk is grossly oversized, or the Catapult grossly undersized, you can't use pics from the mechlab to make your point. That perspective is very skewed. You can't put mechlab pics of those mechs side-by-side and expect that that comparison will represent what those mechs look like in-game (they don't, by the way).

[Mcgral18]

ScarecrowES, on 24 June 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

(they don't, by the way).

Mind providing some proof for that?

The fact you've got a hard on for volume makes me doubt that.

[ScarecrowES]

Mcgral18, on 24 June 2016 - 02:25 PM, said:

Mind providing some proof for that?

The fact you've got a hard on for volume makes me doubt that.

Well, merely anecdotal, as I don't own the PHX. But I DO own a LOT of Catapults, and I've been face-hugging many a Phoenix Hawk in my Butterbee since the patch. I can attest the cockpit on the Catapult does not bury itself squarely in the navel of the Phoenix Hawk.

Interestingly, I'm not sure how much we can trust the full-spectrum ortho views either. Look at that Catapult in the orthos. Note it stands much taller than it does in the ready stance in the mechlab. The legs are stanced straighter. Also, they're not bow-legged like in the actual model. And the arm boxes are not the same as the new model. In the new model, they do not extend outboard of the arm swivel joint, yet they clearly do in the orthographic. Makes me wonder if the ortho view is of the old Catapult.

Some shenanigans going on there.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 24 June 2016 - 02:46 PM.

[cazidin]

ScarecrowES, on 24 June 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

Well, merely anecdotal, as I don't own the PHX. But I DO own a LOT of Catapults, and I've been face-hugging many a Phoenix Hawk in my Butterbee since the patch. I can attest the cockpit on the Catapult does not bury itself squarely in the navel of the Phoenix Hawk.

Couldn't one do a size comparison in private matches by taking these mechs out, standing them next to eachother and comparing both front and side profiles?

[ScarecrowES]

cazidin, on 24 June 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

Couldn't one do a size comparison in private matches by taking these mechs out, standing them next to eachother and comparing both front and side profiles?

If I had a phoenix hawk, I'd just take it out in testing grounds. One of those static mechs is a Catapult, and uses the new model. 3PV screenshot standing next to the Cat should provide reasonable comparison.

I'd also take the locust out, if I could, to get some in-game comparisons here too. I can't imagine the ortho comparison for the locust is correct either... not only is it far out of step with the other lights, but it's out of step with the entire spectrum of mechs. There's no way 5 of those would make an Atlas. Hell, I'm not sure 5 of those, as represented in the orthos, even makes a Catapult.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 24 June 2016 - 03:00 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Math isn't allowed here. Stop it.

[Mcgral18]

cazidin, on 24 June 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

Couldn't one do a size comparison in private matches by taking these mechs out, standing them next to eachother and comparing both front and side profiles?

Ortho VS Perspective, but models may not be crouched properly either (and my current importer can't import them properly, and I don't feel like assembling 50 pieces of a robot)

[Navid A1]

Mcgral18, on 24 June 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

Ortho VS Perspective, but models may not be crouched properly either (and my current importer can't import them properly, and I don't feel like assembling 50 pieces of a robot)

Yeah.. that is my problem too.

I use 3ds max... yet i have to import every single part and screw and position and orient them individually... which is a huge pain.