172 replies to this topic

[Juodas Varnas]

ComradeHavoc, on 16 July 2016 - 01:16 AM, said:

Now listen here you little ****, you've become more than you think you represent. You are literally the mascot for any hope of quads being added to MWO, and with the addition of the upcoming inverse kinematics you have a chance, admittedly small, but still a chance.

So if you actually care for quads, never give in, keep being the poster boy for quads, keep begging and get popular, and never lose hope, you pant's crapping baby.

GET US QUADS IN GAME.

[ComradeHavoc]

BUT SERIOUSLY WHY?!

[PhoenixFire55]

ComradeHavoc, on 21 July 2016 - 02:05 AM, said:

BUT SERIOUSLY WHY?!

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Has the Right Torso of a Hunchback more volume as the left ? in the right Torso the BigFu**** AC20, the Mech ist build around this Weapon ,this Big gun is so Sized, thats the must mounted, in a Heavy or Assault you can place this gun IN the Torso ...the Left and Right Torso from The Atlas ,in the Right the AC20 now have both Sides the same Size , and the Right Torso has not the Space , like the Left and not the same Weight, not the same density ...all this Volume 3D Bubble ist nonsense, the Mechs build only for asthetical Aspects and what for Weapons have Space in it (with no Mechlab and Weapon replacement Rules)..Hollander Mech ,is build around the big Gauss Rifle ,a Running Gun , other Mechs carry this gun in his arms with no Problems (other Factory /Model)..have a Left Arm with 3 Activators ,myromermuscels ,Hands etc more Density Volume,Space ,Weight ,as a Right Arm with no Hand, 2 Activators and a AC10 ?

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 21 July 2016 - 02:26 AM.

[Bud Crue]

ComradeHavoc, on 21 July 2016 - 02:05 AM, said:

BUT SERIOUSLY WHY?!

So they can reach the "better" slot machines found exclusively on the mezzanine level.

[ComradeHavoc]

Bud Crue, on 21 July 2016 - 04:01 AM, said:

So they can reach the "better" slot machines found exclusively on the mezzanine level.

I don't get it.

[FuhNuGi]

Try looking out the cockpit glass in a Mad Dog... since the rescale it seems to look down on every other mech.

High point of view, but taller than mechs that outweigh it by 40 tons.

I see the original posters point, but my SHC seems about right on scale for mediums.

Rescale team must have left a few loose ends for job security.

[Juodas Varnas]

FuhNuGi, on 23 July 2016 - 09:19 AM, said:

Try looking out the cockpit glass in a Mad Dog... since the rescale it seems to look down on every other mech.

High point of view, but taller than mechs that outweigh it by 40 tons.

I see the original posters point, but my SHC seems about right on scale for mediums.

Rescale team must have left a few loose ends for job security.

That's because the Vulture is one of the few mechs with their cockpits RIGHT ON TOP OF THE MECH.

The fact that it's body is horribly inefficient when it comes to volume (the CT is long and narrow with small boxy side torsos and rather spindly limbs is very bad for volumetric scaling).

[Mawai]

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!

BUT they ARE!

The Griffin has both a narrower width and a shorter length. Just LOOK at the pictures you posted. They ARE comparable height. The entire rescale was based on the VOLUME of the models being proportional to tonnage ... and they ARE.

Part of the problem is that the mech models are 3D but most of the game is played in the horizontal plane. This means that the surface area facing opponents is often more important from a balance perspective than the volume of a mech that is scaled to match tonnage.

In your example the surface area of the Griffin is a bit less than the Warhammer ... but not as much as the tonnage difference ... but the VOLUMES of the mechs ARE appropriate for their tonnage more or less.

[cazidin]

Mawai, on 23 July 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

BUT they ARE!

The Griffin has both a narrower width and a shorter length. Just LOOK at the pictures you posted. They ARE comparable height. The entire rescale was based on the VOLUME of the models being proportional to tonnage ... and they ARE.

Part of the problem is that the mech models are 3D but most of the game is played in the horizontal plane. This means that the surface area facing opponents is often more important from a balance perspective than the volume of a mech that is scaled to match tonnage.

In your example the surface area of the Griffin is a bit less than the Warhammer ... but not as much as the tonnage difference ... but the VOLUMES of the mechs ARE appropriate for their tonnage more or less.

...So you agree that the Griffin and the Warhammer have very similar profiles despite a 15 ton difference?

[WatDo]

I'm gonna throw my 2 cents at this thread.

I see people bickering over the rescale, especially the griffin and warhammer picture.

Scientifically, 15 tons aint no thang in regards to 55 and 70 tons.

However, we ALL know these tonnages aren't realistic for the sizes for these mechs so bickering over that is silly.

In real life, 15 tons isnt much, especially when comparing 55 to 70 tons. But here in this game, 15 tons IS HUGE.

Stop looking at it all "realistically" and remember this is a game we're talking about. And we're currently mixing real life measurements with our fake robots and EVERYTHING IS GOING TO **** SO FAST PLS STOP.

Mechs should be given correct sizes and proportions for THIS GAME WORLD (NOT BASED ON LORE, those sizes are bad and should feel bad). A spider is obviously meant to be a tiny little bugger not much bigger than power armor, yet, now... it's not much shorter than an atlas. And it can still be one shot. See the problem now?

This new scaling system is bad, stop bickering over semantics and real life numbers that don't apply to our pixel robots, it's ruining balance.

[ComradeHavoc]

WatDo, on 23 July 2016 - 02:30 PM, said:

I'm gonna throw my 2 cents at this thread.

I see people bickering over the rescale, especially the griffin and warhammer picture.

Scientifically, 15 tons aint no thang in regards to 55 and 70 tons.

However, we ALL know these tonnages aren't realistic for the sizes for these mechs so bickering over that is silly.

In real life, 15 tons isnt much, especially when comparing 55 to 70 tons. But here in this game, 15 tons IS HUGE.

Stop looking at it all "realistically" and remember this is a game we're talking about. And we're currently mixing real life measurements with our fake robots and EVERYTHING IS GOING TO **** SO FAST PLS STOP.

Mechs should be given correct sizes and proportions for THIS GAME WORLD (NOT BASED ON LORE, those sizes are bad and should feel bad). A spider is obviously meant to be a tiny little bugger not much bigger than power armor, yet, now... it's not much shorter than an atlas. And it can still be one shot. See the problem now?

This new scaling system is bad, stop bickering over semantics and real life numbers that don't apply to our pixel robots, it's ruining balance.

So why are medium mechs so freaking tall?

[Bishop Steiner]

ComradeHavoc, on 02 August 2016 - 06:06 AM, said:

So why are medium mechs so freaking tall?

Just to piss you off.

[Variant1]

Y'all asked for this when everyone constantly kept saying they wanted a resize. Now you got it. I was the only one who wanted the catapult and nova to stay big and not shrink into light class size but noooooo. So if i cant have a good ol normal nova/catapult then every other mech needs to burn. Now u all know how i feel when nova/catpault got smaller.

My only suggestion for you all is to: Deal with it (insert deal with it gif here)

[Foxwalker]

Deathlike, on 14 July 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

Medium Mechs are tall because we need to mistake them for Assault mechs. That is what PGI is teaching us.

Once in a while, Trebuchets are mistaken for Highlanders.

You're better off doing the Medium Mech drinking game, where you take a drink every time to see an overscaled Medium Mech, posing as something much larger than it already is.

Not fair, I would be too drunk to play!

[AWOL 01]

This thread though...
I wanted to stay away but I have to make a couple points.

1. The difference between a 20 ton mech and a 30 ton mech is going to be bigger than the difference between a 60 ton mech and a 70 ton mech because the 10 ton difference is half the 20 tonner's mass, but only 1/6th the 60 tonner's mass. Going up 5 tons is going to be a much more noticeable difference when comparing lights, and much less noticeable when comparing assaults.

2. Choosing to scale volumetrically was probably the best choice PGI has made in a long time. The other 2 options were to scale based on how big they "feel" the mech should be, or scale based on Battletech lore. Scaling based on feel would've gotten worse and worse - just look at how PGI tries to quirk mechs before they come out. Do you want your favorite mech's size getting changed as often as the quirks? The other option would've been even worse. First, there aren't official heights and sizes for every mech, and when you look at the ones they do have it makes you cringe. Seriously, a Firemoth that's taller than a Dire Wolf...

3. Y'all need to go back to high school and take a geometry class or something. At least Google the Square-Cube Law. I'm a mechanical engineer so I admit I have a better grasp on this sort of thing, so I'll give an example. Recently, because the government likes to stick its nose where it doesn't belong, we had trouble getting 1/2 inch manganese plate for a machine. However, we were offered a discount on 5/8 inch plate because of the inconvenience. Adding 1/8th of an inch to all the weldments on the machine increased its weight from 138,000 pounds (69 tons) to 150,000 pounds (75 tons) with no noticeable increase in size. Changing one dimension by 1/8th of an inch in a machine that is 81 feet x 4 feet x 14 feet added 5 tons.

I know this probably won't change anyone's mind but I had to say it or I'd pull my hair out...

[Felicitatem Parco]

The Hunchback seems reasonable.

Why do I emphasize this? Because it is fat and round. Why are the other medium Mechs so tall? Because they are not fat and round. Blame the people who wanted BattleTech Mech designs in this game, because they wanted comic book art made into 3D models.

If this were *my* game then I would be changing many Mechs' appearances to make them more combat-worthy. I could care less about Nostalgic shapes.

[Bishop Steiner]

AWOL 01, on 02 August 2016 - 08:09 AM, said:

This thread though...
I wanted to stay away but I have to make a couple points.

1. The difference between a 20 ton mech and a 30 ton mech is going to be bigger than the difference between a 60 ton mech and a 70 ton mech because the 10 ton difference is half the 20 tonner's mass, but only 1/6th the 60 tonner's mass. Going up 5 tons is going to be a much more noticeable difference when comparing lights, and much less noticeable when comparing assaults.

2. Choosing to scale volumetrically was probably the best choice PGI has made in a long time. The other 2 options were to scale based on how big they "feel" the mech should be, or scale based on Battletech lore. Scaling based on feel would've gotten worse and worse - just look at how PGI tries to quirk mechs before they come out. Do you want your favorite mech's size getting changed as often as the quirks? The other option would've been even worse. First, there aren't official heights and sizes for every mech, and when you look at the ones they do have it makes you cringe. Seriously, a Firemoth that's taller than a Dire Wolf...

3. Y'all need to go back to high school and take a geometry class or something. At least Google the Square-Cube Law. I'm a mechanical engineer so I admit I have a better grasp on this sort of thing, so I'll give an example. Recently, because the government likes to stick its nose where it doesn't belong, we had trouble getting 1/2 inch manganese plate for a machine. However, we were offered a discount on 5/8 inch plate because of the inconvenience. Adding 1/8th of an inch to all the weldments on the machine increased its weight from 138,000 pounds (69 tons) to 150,000 pounds (75 tons) with no noticeable increase in size. Changing one dimension by 1/8th of an inch in a machine that is 81 feet x 4 feet x 14 feet added 5 tons.

I know this probably won't change anyone's mind but I had to say it or I'd pull my hair out...

problem is they don't want consistent logic, but a more subjective "play friendly" scale.... which is a tad laughable since ya know... PGI.... as your point on sizing by "feel"..... we know they won't be constantly rescaling them (too much work by far) which means the scale gets locked by the Meta of the Month.... and then when meta shifts... everything is wonky and screwed.

The more locked, stable and unbiased guidelines PGI has to work from, the better the chance of someday maybe seeing something remotely resembling balance. But some folks, as always, can't see the forest thru the trees.

Prosperity Park, on 02 August 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

The Hunchback seems reasonable.

Why do I emphasize this? Because it is fat and round. Why are the other medium Mechs so tall? Because they are not fat and round. Blame the people who wanted BattleTech Mech designs in this game, because they wanted comic book art made into 3D models.

If this were *my* game then I would be changing many Mechs' appearances to make them more combat-worthy. I could care less about Nostalgic shapes.

or because, ya know... we wanted a "battletech game", instead of a generic mech shooter? (or course, we didn't get one, but you don't tap the whale without nostalgia)

[Moldur]

Rampage, on 14 July 2016 - 07:45 PM, said:

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?

This is a question I have been asking myself when the scaling threads were in full force. Do we just pretend that all that space does not matter? Do we round down, squint our eyes, and say it looks the same?

What is more, each of those blue areas extends into the page. They are not just paper-thin flaps. Looking at the front CT, the Warhammer has significantly more material.


That is not to say the rescale could have only been done one way. PGI could have widened mechs horizontally and in depth, which would make them shorter. However, this would have had a more drastic effect on their aesthetics. They also could have decided to beef up the legs slightly, while maintaining the same proportions everywhere else. This would have also made mechs shorter. This is really evident in the 35 ton man-walkers like the panther. They are quite thin, but quite tall as a result.

Edited by Moldur, 02 August 2016 - 09:16 AM.

[cazidin]

Bishop Steiner, on 02 August 2016 - 08:56 AM, said:

problem is they don't want consistent logic, but a more subjective "play friendly" scale.... which is a tad laughable since ya know... PGI.... as your point on sizing by "feel"..... we know they won't be constantly rescaling them (too much work by far) which means the scale gets locked by the Meta of the Month.... and then when meta shifts... everything is wonky and screwed.

The more locked, stable and unbiased guidelines PGI has to work from, the better the chance of someday maybe seeing something remotely resembling balance. But some folks, as always, can't see the forest thru the trees.


or because, ya know... we wanted a "battletech game", instead of a generic mech shooter? (or course, we didn't get one, but you don't tap the whale without nostalgia)

The irony here is that in making Medium Mechs almost as tall as Heavy Mechs does bring MW:O closer to a true "Battletech Game" according to the original size graph.