172 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

LordKnightFandragon, on 14 July 2016 - 05:21 PM, said:

Cuz PGI cant measure for ****.

All the mechs besides the lights and Catapults are STILL WWWWWWAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY to ******* big.

The Lights and Catapult are literally the only mechs that are the right size. The 70t Warhammer is now like 2 Catapults tall. The PHX is as tall as the Atlas...45t, tall as an oversized Atlas...lol.

And Russ claims to be a huge fan of BT, yet he makes a game where every mech is massively oversized. Such a fan woulda at least based his mechs off the TROs...but I think he lies.

Height is not the only dimension that determines "size." There are, oddly enough, 2 other dimensions too.

And please... let's not think that somehow basing mech scaling on LORE would be a remotely viable idea.


Unless you're saying you're ok with the lightest mech in the game being the same height as the heaviest mech in the game.

[Deathlike]

Trauglodyte, on 14 July 2016 - 04:58 PM, said:

You're wasting your time, Bishop. The QQ kids just don't understand basic geometry and how volume actually works and none of them want to accept the fact that 15 tons, by way of volume, is very little actual space.

Volume isn't the solution. Let me put it in a more obvious context because this is the reality of the game.


Imagine you're trying to snipe from 800+m in an open area... think Alpine (because, it sucks, but it has plenty of space).

An Urbie and Atlas are walking towards you, from the distance (1000+m away).

Ignoring loadout of those mechs, which target is easier to aim at?

You know the answer to the rhetorical question.


Let's replace the Urbie and Atlas with every Assault mech in the game.

In order of frontal mech profile, which mech has tiniest profile... assuming all of them are approaching you (ignoring their loadout) - which Assault mech has the smallest profile of the bunch to snipe at?

Again, you know this is a rhetorical question.



When you consider that 95%+ of all shots made at shot from the front (staring at the enemy), and hits taken is generally related to what is shown by the target, the profile of the mech dictates the relative ease of shooting it. This is before we factor in the act of torso twisting and arm shielding.


If you look at some of the bigger medium mechs (generally 55 tonners) from a distance, and try to compare them to Heavies and Assaults, you could think they are very similar... but they inherently DO NOT have the same level of durability.


I know people will cite.. "well, we can just show the arms/side" and try to approach from a different direction... but let's consider the side profiles from certain mechs.

A mech solely dependent on their arms to draw the majority of their firepower are impacted more than those that generally draw them from their torsos.


When your arms are huge... like the Mist Lynx, Vindicator, Trebuchet (and various other mechs).. you "lose" the ability to effectively shield with your arms (you still can, at your own peril).


While this has nothing with being tall, the arm profile of a mech, relative to its hardpoint locations (localized to their arms in general), makes a significant difference in how durable the mech's firepower happens to be.


The mech's profile often dictates how durable a mech happens to be. When a mech is considered oversized, it's primarily because it's easier to hit them, if not disable them (death or disarmament).


It's not rocket science to anyone... but if you refuse to understand basic geometry, then I dunno what to tell you. Volume can have multiple different surface areas involved... a wide+large front and a thin side is not as useful as a mech that has a compact front, and a wide-load side. The Stalker is the poster child for this. The rescaled Nova and Catapults are poster childs for this.

If that wasn't obvious, again, I don't know what to tell you.

[ScarecrowES]

Deathlike, on 14 July 2016 - 05:31 PM, said:

Volume isn't the solution. Let me put it in a more obvious context because this is the reality of the game.


Imagine you're trying to snipe from 800+m in an open area... think Alpine (because, it sucks, but it has plenty of space).

An Urbie and Atlas are walking towards you, from the distance (1000+m away).

Ignoring loadout of those mechs, which target is easier to aim at?

You know the answer to the rhetorical question.


Let's replace the Urbie and Atlas with every Assault mech in the game.

In order of frontal mech profile, which mech has tiniest profile... assuming all of them are approaching you (ignoring their loadout) - which Assault mech has the smallest profile of the bunch to snipe at?

Again, you know this is a rhetorical question.



When you consider that 95%+ of all shots made at shot from the front (staring at the enemy), and hits taken is generally related to what is shown by the target, the profile of the mech dictates the relative ease of shooting it. This is before we factor in the act of torso twisting and arm shielding.


If you look at some of the bigger medium mechs (generally 55 tonners) from a distance, and try to compare them to Heavies and Assaults, you could think they are very similar... but they inherently DO NOT have the same level of durability.


I know people will cite.. "well, we can just show the arms/side" and try to approach from a different direction... but let's consider the side profiles from certain mechs.

A mech solely dependent on their arms to draw the majority of their firepower are impacted more than those that generally draw them from their torsos.


When your arms are huge... like the Mist Lynx, Vindicator, Trebuchet (and various other mechs).. you "lose" the ability to effectively shield with your arms (you still can, at your own peril).


While this has nothing with being tall, the arm profile of a mech, relative to its hardpoint locations (localized to their arms in general), makes a significant difference in how durable the mech's firepower happens to be.


The mech's profile often dictates how durable a mech happens to be. When a mech is considered oversized, it's primarily because it's easier to hit them, if not disable them (death or disarmament).


It's not rocket science to anyone... but if you refuse to understand basic geometry, then I dunno what to tell you. Volume can have multiple different surface areas involved... a wide+large front and a thin side is not as useful as a mech that has a compact front, and a wide-load side. The Stalker is the poster child for this. The rescaled Nova and Catapults are poster childs for this.

If that wasn't obvious, again, I don't know what to tell you.

So... we throw out any mechs that are not humanoid so you can have more consistent scaling AND have it not confuse your sense of volume? I'm confused as to the point of your post.

[Deathlike]

ScarecrowES, on 14 July 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

So... we throw out any mechs that are not humanoid so you can have more consistent scaling AND have it not confuse your sense of volume? I'm confused as to the point of your post.

It's less about being humanoid, as it is how easy it is to shoot something.

Quirks were meant to offset some of these problems, only if and when it made sense.

One of the earlier quirks was to increase structure to the shield arm on a Centurion. That's fine... because you WANT to torso twist to use it as a shield. This is fine when done properly.

What they are NOT supposed to be used for is for poor scaling.

If every medium mech needs structure quirks (for most of the mech's body, CT+side torsos)... this implies there's a problem with the base scale.

When comparing mechs, if the overall size of a smaller mech is "too similar" to a mech that is at least 10-tons bigger than it, there is a problem.


It's less about "large arms" and such (noone really tries to shield their torsos with the BJ's arms do they?) than it is overall profile.


The easier it is to shoot at a target, they better be "durable" for its size. When that isn't the case, there is something very likely wrong with the scale used.

Edited by Deathlike, 14 July 2016 - 05:47 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

Death, I get what you're saying and I don't disagree. The thing is, if you make an objective call about what size should be, then you're opening up another issue entirely. Who gets to make the right call? Using volume was the only non-biased way of doing it. Quite frankly, the size changes haven't really impacted any mech other than the Lights, which their size has been a problem since the beginning of the game, and maybe the Catapult.

The truth is that size doesn't matter if you avoid getting hit and if the game doesn't allow for vomiting damage on a whim. Fix that last part and everything is fine.

[ScarecrowES]

Deathlike, on 14 July 2016 - 05:46 PM, said:

It's less about being humanoid, as it is how easy it is to shoot something.

Quirks were meant to offset some of these problems, only if and when it made sense.

One of the earlier quirks was to increase structure to the shield arm on a Centurion. That's fine... because you WANT to torso twist to use it as a shield. This is fine when done properly.

What they are NOT supposed to be used for is for poor scaling.

If every medium mech needs structure quirks (for most of the mech's body, CT+side torsos)... this implies there's a problem with the base scale.

When comparing mechs, if the overall size of a smaller mech is "too similar" to a mech that is at least 10-tons bigger than it, there is a problem.


It's less about "large arms" and such (noone really tries to shield their torsos with the BJ's arms do they?) than it is overall profile.


The easier it is to shoot at a target, they better be "durable" for its size. When that isn't the case, there is something very likely wrong with the scale used.

Fortunately, as you can see from the current game, sizes of mechs of similar build are consistently scaled to size regardless of tonnage. So mission accomplished there.

It's also more than fair to say that increased size is coming with appropriate rewards afforded by the corresponding increase in tonnage - now newly accurate and consistent. As tonnage and size go up, so does survivability through increased armor and structure.

[Deathlike]

Trauglodyte, on 14 July 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

Death, I get what you're saying and I don't disagree. The thing is, if you make an objective call about what size should be, then you're opening up another issue entirely. Who gets to make the right call? Using volume was the only non-biased way of doing it. Quite frankly, the size changes haven't really impacted any mech other than the Lights, which their size has been a problem since the beginning of the game, and maybe the Catapult.

The truth is that size doesn't matter if you avoid getting hit and if the game doesn't allow for vomiting damage on a whim. Fix that last part and everything is fine.

I would say some of it has to be arbitrary, but in the sense that it's "all relative". You have to think about how the chassis is balanced vs mechs of the same tonnage, and THEN you can kinda properly compare to mechs slightly bigger and smaller than it.

It won't be perfect - the geometry of every mech is different. It could be kinda OK if a mech is a glass cannon if the firepower warrants it... or a mech that is ultra durable, despite its firepower being sub-par.

It's all relative.

ScarecrowES, on 14 July 2016 - 06:01 PM, said:

Fortunately, as you can see from the current game, sizes of mechs of similar build are consistently scaled to size regardless of tonnage. So mission accomplished there.

It's also more than fair to say that increased size is coming with appropriate rewards afforded by the corresponding increase in tonnage - now newly accurate and consistent. As tonnage and size go up, so does survivability through increased armor and structure.

It's not even close.

I'd rather reduce/remove many of the structure buffs if that produced a smaller mech. Most Lights were not even afforded what you are describing, so that in itself was a complete inconsistency.

[Trauglodyte]

You're right, Death. I have been screaming for 4+ years asking why the Cicada was so much bigger than the Jenner when the only difference is 5 tons. It looks and feels right now. People just need to adapt to it. But, in the end, we can't make everyone happy. I'm more worried about the path MW:O is going than the size. FW is, and I have no first hand knowledge of it, a boring grind with no depth and broken Long Tom that is going to stay broken.

[Mavairo]

They are the size of Heavies and Assaults because of Reasons™.

Mostly because PGI thinks that some how having all the mechs the same size gives them a baseline for balance.

Rather than doing something more sensible like introducing actual armor mechanics for bigger mechs, boosting mobility and agility of smaller mechs, adding a detection system into the game for varying mech classes (ie smaller mechs are more stealthy etc) they went for a herpaderp derp route of using a bs volumetric system that even they in their patch notes admitted they tossed out the window, when they felt it was "Appropriate" for gameplay reasons.

[Mcgral18]

ScarecrowES, on 14 July 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

Using Mechlab views for scale comparisons between different mechs? tsk tsk. You know better.

Oh look, the same result!



Still don't understand how you guys are defending this.

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 14 July 2016 - 06:40 PM, said:

Oh look, the same result!



Still don't understand how you guys are defending this.

Guys, the 55-tonner needs to emulate a 70-tonner.

It's only fair and balanced.

[Mavairo]

33060 lbs. That's the weight difference in a 55 ton mech, to a 70 Ton mech in lbs.

33,000lb. That's an utterly huge addition of mass to an object that frankly this "Volume scale!" doesn't make a damn bit of sense on.

There is no way in hell the pic overlay of Griffin to Warhammer conveys a 33,060lb weight difference.

Edited by Mavairo, 14 July 2016 - 07:03 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Mcgral18, on 14 July 2016 - 06:40 PM, said:

Oh look, the same result!



Still don't understand how you guys are defending this.

55 tons is roughly 80% of 70 tons, yes? So looking at that, does the one look like roughly 80% of the other? Why yes, yes it does.

[Mcgral18]

ScarecrowES, on 14 July 2016 - 07:12 PM, said:

55 tons is roughly 80% of 70 tons, yes? So looking at that, does the one look like roughly 80% of the other? Why yes, yes it does.

And you'll note they have roughly the same frontal profile, which ***** up game balance

[Cy Mitchell]

The people who are pointing to surface area cosistently refuse to look at the Mechs as a 3D model stating that only the front proportions matter. Yet, a few of them are some of the better players in the game and I know that they will go out of their way to shoot a Mech in the side, back or top rather than face them head on because that is what I do and I am not one of the better players in the game.

It is a three dimensional game. Stop showing two dimensional images to try to prove your case. Height is only one dimension. Look at the whole.

The bias and tunnel vision here is really sad.

[ScarecrowES]

Mcgral18, on 14 July 2016 - 07:24 PM, said:

And you'll note they have roughly the same frontal profile, which ***** up game balance

No doubt... but the initial posting was intended to suggest there was something off about their sizes. Their sizes are correct.

Does the fact that two mechs of different tonnages have similar frontal profiles affect balance? Absolutely. But it's not wrong, in and of itself. You didn't post a "balance" comparison, afterall.

[Revis Volek]

FupDup, on 14 July 2016 - 03:43 PM, said:

But bro, they're totally the objectively and scientifically correct volume now!

Look at this picture below for SCIENCE and OBJECTIVITY!



See? You can totally tell that the Warhammer has 15 additional tons of armor and firepower over the Griffin. Look at how drastically different their sizes are!

[FupDup]

Rampage, on 14 July 2016 - 07:25 PM, said:

The people who are pointing to surface area cosistently refuse to look at the Mechs as a 3D model stating that only the front proportions matter. Yet, a few of them are some of the better players in the game and I know that they will go out of their way to shoot a Mech in the side, back or top rather than face them head on because that is what I do and I am not one of the better players in the game.

It is a three dimensional game. Stop showing two dimensional images to try to prove your case. Height is only one dimension. Look at the whole.

The bias and tunnel vision here is really sad.

In terms of target size, the back profile is basically the same as the front except for a few details like exhaust ports.

The top profile doesn't get shot much. When it does get shot it tends to be hit by LRMs, which aren't really that common or threatening in many cases.

This leaves us with the front and sides as the primary dimensions that have the most impact on shooting enemy targets.


As a side note, here is the breakdown of each dimension:
Front: Height & Width
Side: Height & Depth
Top: Depth & Width

What this means is that if you know the front and side, you can easily derive the top. The top dimension is not as unique as people believe. The top is merely a hybrid of the front and side combined.


As the final note, real life marksmen do actually practice shooting targets based on 2D profiles. Don't believe me? Well, let's take a look:

Edited by FupDup, 14 July 2016 - 07:40 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

FupDup, on 14 July 2016 - 07:38 PM, said:

As the final note, real life marksmen do actually practice shooting targets based on 2D profiles. Don't believe me? Well, let's take a look:

It tends to reflect badly on a shooter if it's not "comin' right for us!"

In fairness, my groupings have always been so tight that it wouldn't matter if they were turned to the side.

[Cy Mitchell]

Mcgral18, on 14 July 2016 - 06:40 PM, said:

Oh look, the same result!



Still don't understand how you guys are defending this.

I see the blue of the heavier Mech almost all the way around the green of the lighter Mech. All that extra blue is Mass/weight. How is it possible that you ignore that?

Take a 5'11" 210Lb running back and stand him nest to a 6'3" 210Lb basketball player. Which one is bigger?