5 replies to this topic

[Lupus Aurelius]

The re-sizing of the mechs by PGI yet again shows lack of critical thinking and a lack of understanding of elements of mech composition.

The problem is that people are confusing mass with volume. If these mechs were all solid throughout, of the same material, like statues, then using a mass to volume ratio would apply.

But they are not solid, the internal spaces of a mech are just that, empty spaces. Some mechs were quite compact, with little space between components, others, like the Orion, were known to have large internal spaces, making maintenance exceptional easy, and loved by the techs for being so. Some mechs had cramped cockpits, others had basically suites with bed, cooking and washing facilities.

Also, all the components in a mech are not of the same density. Myomer would be less dense than armor plating. The larger the surface area, the more weight in armor that would be required, since armor "tonnage" is related also to thickness/volume/mass/density.

A larger frame would require more tonnage in dedicated to the skeletal structure of the mech as well. Larger mechs would not just require "longer" and "wider" skeletal frames, but also thicker skeletal components, so weight of skeletal frames could not be scaled linearly.

Whereas other components, weapon systems for example, would be a composite of different materials with different densities, and still packaged with internal spaces within them. A gauss Rifle's volumn is more than the weight of it's components, the bore of the gun is empty space, as well as the different densities of the components, say, the capacitor volume/density compared to the gun barrel.

With engine sizes, a mech has to have enough space to fit it's max rated engine, regardless of the tonnage/size actually utilized, and with sufficient space to install and maintain.

And as stated prior, there are spaces between all these components, to allow access for maintenance.

So, only utilizing mass as a criteria for volume is insufficient to accurately scale battlemechs, it's the "easy" solution, but has now generated the absolutely ridiculous scales we currently have received from PGI

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 25 June 2016 - 07:54 AM.

[TheRagingWampa]

I think where PGI screwed it all up was they rescaled the mechs out of balance rather than the true physical nature that the mechs would have.

[Hellion Kell]

extremely good I never thought about that but you are absolutely right, also good point about the orion I know that about it in the lore but never thought about it in game play, maybe a reduced crit chance like some of the atlases.

[Dee Eight]

You're arguing about getting sizing scale "right" in a game based on a fictional future, that relies on the worst idea for giant battle robots (bipedal motion) not to mention ignores laws of physics like ground pressure and doesn't even scale the mass right to the supposed height. Square Cube Law. Look it up. And all mechs regardless of mass all have exactly the same internal critical spaces free to put things apparently. Yeah that makes sense. NOT.

[AeusDeif]

@OP: That's true, but I hope they take it as license to make underperforming mechs with low-mounted weapons more compact than their weight class peers, rather than make them larger (worse) to suit the aesthetic tastes of lorehards. For example, orion being roomy on the inside would presumably mean a larger profile, when it already performs badly as is. Screw the lore, make it a competitive mech.

to me, any argument about the game that doesn't indicate how to improve the gameplay is essentially spam.

Edited by AeusDeif, 25 June 2016 - 10:34 AM.

[R5D4]

TheRagingWampa, on 25 June 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

I think where PGI screwed it all up was they rescaled the mechs out of balance rather than the true physical nature that the mechs would have.

Really? I'd say it was the opposite. They scaled to keep things "real" but didn't account for game-balance. At least with all the light Mech's anyway.