44 replies to this topic

[MW Waldorf Statler]

G4LV4TR0N, on 18 March 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

And? Total armor values are same. It's called density.

what is the density of a big empty Room for hold big Weapons like AC20 and little empty rooms for hold only a LRM 5?,the Mass/density of a Right arm with nothing and the same sized left Arm hold a AC10?the Density of a Center Torso with Room for a 330 Reaktor or only a 250 Reaktor or a XL reactor ?is a full Loaded Truck bigger as a Empty Truck or have other Density in the Structure

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 18 March 2017 - 10:05 PM.

[G4LV4TR0N]

It's not relevant. Check existing cars, one that is of same size of another can be few times heavier and still move at same speed because of strong engine.

To make it more realistic, mech mass should affect turn rate more than move speed(realism has nothing to do with BT).

Edited by G4LV4TR0N, 19 March 2017 - 01:22 AM.

[Dogstar]

The problem is not one of scaling! Scaling mechs by volume is an excellent solution.

The problem is that some mechs are short and fat and other mechs are tall and thin. This particularly benefits chicken walker type mechs that have deep, high volume torsos - they end up being much shorter, and thus significantly harder to hit an easier to spread damage than humanoid mechs (from the front anyway).

What's needed is for overheight mechs to be remodelled with shorter fatter/deeper components thus reducing their frontal aspect.

[Bud Crue]

FupDup, on 18 March 2017 - 11:55 AM, said:

My point still stands regardless. There needs to be a significant size difference between little robots and big robots for the little robbits to stand a chance, unless quirks or other "artificial" methods are used to close the power gap.

With one of the stated goals of PGI to provide a "drastic reduction of inherent mech quirks" I do wonder what they are going to do to address these sorts of differences and to give slower "oversized" robots a chance?

I mean I know the skills tree PTS was limited to nerfing offensive quirks, but given the crit changes and general nerfing of several weapons systems of late I am guessing they will be hitting defensive quirks soon as well (especially in light of their stated goals). That makes me wonder how in a assumed future of a "drastic reduction of inherent mech quirks" how are mechs like the IS 35 tonners going to be viable? And in the larger classes, the lower ends of the classes (45, 60 and 80 tonners respectively)? Or even heck some of the truly "oversized" mechs like the Atlas?

Size does matter and quirks help those that are hindered by it. I do wonder what they are going to do with these already less than top...less than mid tier mechs in any new quirk reduced version of the game. I sure hope they do something.

[FupDup]

Bud Crue, on 19 March 2017 - 05:29 AM, said:

With one of the stated goals of PGI to provide a "drastic reduction of inherent mech quirks" I do wonder what they are going to do to address these sorts of differences and to give slower "oversized" robots a chance?

I mean I know the skills tree PTS was limited to nerfing offensive quirks, but given the crit changes and general nerfing of several weapons systems of late I am guessing they will be hitting defensive quirks soon as well (especially in light of their stated goals). That makes me wonder how in a assumed future of a "drastic reduction of inherent mech quirks" how are mechs like the IS 35 tonners going to be viable? And in the larger classes, the lower ends of the classes (45, 60 and 80 tonners respectively)? Or even heck some of the truly "oversized" mechs like the Atlas?

Size does matter and quirks help those that are hindered by it. I do wonder what they are going to do with these already less than top...less than mid tier mechs in any new quirk reduced version of the game. I sure hope they do something.

I'll put that promise in the same bin as their promise to better quirk the "dog" mechs even before the rescale.

For whatever reason, bad gundams don't get buffed very often around here.

[SmokedJag]

Khobai, on 18 March 2017 - 05:56 PM, said:

i do think most assaults have a problem with their scaling yes

I dont think its the only problem in the game by a longshot. or the most serious problem.

But its the problem were talking about in this particular discussion.



a jenner that weighs 35 tons is going to be made out of the same materials an an atlas that weighs 100 tons. the only difference is the amount of materials.

so given that the materials are the same, the density should be the same too, so an atlas should only be 3 times bigger than a jenner. not 4-5 times bigger than a jenner like in MWO.

That's not how density works. Three times the size is NOT three times the mass if density is constant. Volume is cubed. BattleTech has always been a...large offender on this subject. And the art makes no effort to account for this.

If the mass *ratio* is supposed to be consistent (the masses themselves are screwy), 'Mechs will be very close in size as the greatest disparity is 5x in mass AND with that including specific dense components (big weapons).

[Pixel Hunter]

Dogstar, on 19 March 2017 - 04:40 AM, said:

The problem is not one of scaling! Scaling mechs by volume is an excellent solution.

The problem is that some mechs are short and fat and other mechs are tall and thin. This particularly benefits chicken walker type mechs that have deep, high volume torsos - they end up being much shorter, and thus significantly harder to hit an easier to spread damage than humanoid mechs (from the front anyway).

What's needed is for overheight mechs to be remodelled with shorter fatter/deeper components thus reducing their frontal aspect.

take the urbie for example: they made it much taller and less squat

[RaptorRage]

FLG 01, on 18 March 2017 - 01:57 PM, said:

I see that image frequently posted, but where is it from? Is it even canon?

Put that particular version together in March 2005 and updated it to more of a blueprint visual style in October 2015 which is posted in the Fan Art section of the Catalyst BattleTech forum. Front views are from the MechWarrior 2nd Edition rulebook and the side views are from the original TRO 3050, where the relative scale between the Mechs matched in each publication. The listed heights are based on the Armorcast 1:60 scale models that were available from around 2002 that put the Vulture at around 12.0 meters and the Mad Cat a bit taller, with their Atlas offering coming in at 15.9 meters. The Elementals are referenced at 3.0 meters and the Armorcast 28mm trooper at around 1.8 meters.

Later became aware of the 1991 FASA BattleTech Comstar blueprints for the Vulture/Loki/Thor/Mad Cat in 1:20 scale. From some online images of those posters with rulers next to them the Mech heights appear to be around 86% of the Armorcast reference scales, where the 12.0 meter Vulture would be around 10.4 meters based on the 1991 blueprints and likewise the other Mechs shorter as well. Those four blueprints would probably be considered a more primary source material for the Clan OmniMech sizes. I'll eventually find some copies and update that chart after measuring the blueprints and verifying the scales with those height references.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

the best Scaling Factor is the first TT Ruleset ...2 Levels (a level ~6meter) give all Mechs full cover

http://bg.battletech...p?topic=23408.0

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 20 March 2017 - 03:19 AM.

[Skanderborg]

Look at tanks for a size comparison.

This is a 100 ton tank.

Spoiler

This is a 65 ton tank

Spoiler

This is a 45 ton tank

Spoiler

This is a 37 ton tank

Spoiler

You can see that their is a big difference in size but at the same time its not an overwhelming difference.

Of course build design , material choice , and build quality have alot to go with size as well.

The game designers made assaults really big as a draw back of all the armor and weapons , and made lights smaller (at least before the rescale patch) to make up for there lack of the above.

I would like to see all mechs in this game downsized but keep the same ratio between the weight classes. Not only would it increase TTK but some assaults would not just be giant bullet catchers and lights would be harder to hit.

Edited by Skanderborg, 20 March 2017 - 04:53 AM.

[mogs01gt]

G4LV4TR0N, on 18 March 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

And? Total armor values are same. It's called density.

Because mechs arent dense. They arent tanks. Mechs have fibers and mechanical devices behind the armor that allows them to move.Think of it like a 50lb 4 year old vs a 200lb man. The man is "twice" the child's size but 4 times his weight.

IMO mechs are to big, lights are a bit too small and the maps are designed poorly to reflect the actual size of mechs. Mech shouldnt be towering over 10 story buildings.

Edited by mogs01gt, 20 March 2017 - 05:03 AM.

[Paigan]

Juodas Varnas, on 18 March 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

Yeah, well according to that BT mech scaling 25 ton Mist Lynx should be taller than the 55 ton Stormcrow.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I'm pretty sure the exact values given are just artsy guesses and would never survive any volumetric calculation, BUT:
It could very well be that a 25t Mech that consists almost "only" of height and hardly length would be slightly taller than a 55t Mech witch flxed legs and a rather lengthy horizontal torso.

If they built those two Mechs with those shapes and those weight in reality and the MLX would come out slightly taller than the SCR, would you stand in front of them and say "Nah, thanks but no thanks"?

[Khobai]

Quote

Think of it like a 50lb 4 year old vs a 200lb man. The man is "twice" the child's size but 4 times his weight.

um a 200lb man is more than twice the size of a 50lb 4 year old lol.

since the human body is primarily made up of the same thing: ~70% water, id say its a good conclusion that a 200lb man would be about four times the size of a 50lb 4 year old. because the density of water is constant and isnt going to change.

same thing with mechs in battletech. theyre made up of the same pool of interchangeable parts, so their volume can be expected to scale proportionally to weight.

Quote

It could very well be that a 25t Mech that consists almost "only" of height and hardly length would be slightly taller than a 55t Mech witch flxed legs and a rather lengthy horizontal torso.

yeah but designing a light mech to be only height doesnt follow standard military logic

military logic would be to reduce the profile as much as possible by making height the least prominent characteristic

and from a game balance standpoint youre just creating unuseable mechs by doing that, so why do it? all mechs in MWO should have a standardized height based on their tonnage. the 3d modelers taking liberties is what creating scaling problems with mechs like the catapult in the first place.

Quote

You can see that their is a big difference in size but at the same time its not an overwhelming difference.

Of course build design , material choice , and build quality have alot to go with size as well.

except those tanks are all made of different parts. you cant take an engine out of one tank and put it in a different tank. you cant take the weapons or armor off one tank and mount it to another tank. it wont work.

in battletech though all mechs are made of the same interchangeable parts. you can swap engines. swap weapons. swap armor. swap virtually anything you want from one mech to a different mech. which is why all mechs are going to more or less be the same density because they all draw from the same pool of parts.

everything in battletech is standardized and modular to the extreme. you seem to not understand that key difference between battletech and real life. your whole little tank analogy simply does not apply to battletech at all.

Edited by Khobai, 20 March 2017 - 05:48 AM.

[Skanderborg]

Khobai, on 20 March 2017 - 05:28 AM, said:

um a 200lb man is more than twice the size of a 50lb 4 year old.

since the human body is primarily made up of the same thing: ~70% water, id say its a good conclusion that a 200lb man would be about four times the size of a 50lb 4 year old.

same thing with mechs in battletech. theyre made up of the same pool of interchangeable parts, so their volume will scale proportionally to weight.



yeah but designing a light mech to be only height doesnt follow standard military logic

military logic would be to reduce the profile as much as possible by making height the least prominent characteristic

and from a game balance standpoint youre just creating unuseable mechs by doing that, so why do it?



except those tanks are all made of different parts. you cant take an engine out of one tank and put it in a different tank. you cant take the weapons or armor off one tank and mount it to another tank. it wont work.

in battletech though all mechs are made of the same interchangeable parts. you can swap engines. swap weapons. swap armor. swap virtually anything you want from one mech to a different mech. which is why all mechs are going to more or less be the same density because they all draw from the same pool of parts.

everything in battletech is standardized and modular to the extreme. you seem to not understand that key difference between battletech and real life. your whole little tank analogy simply does not apply to battletech at all.

I'm under the impression that Battletech is not standarized , the games might be but if you look at sarna for any mech or weapon you can see a list of different manufacturers. If you read up on it further you can see

http://www.sarna.net...-Standard_Parts

It says "providing rules for un-supported features in the game" so yes , i agree that the game is extremely streamlined for the sake of convience , but the universe itself is not. So we both have a point.

[mogs01gt]

Khobai, on 20 March 2017 - 05:28 AM, said:

um a 200lb man is more than twice the size of a 50lb 4 year old lol.

umm no. My son is almost 4 feet all. If I was twice his size, I'd be 8 feet. Im 6 foot. The point is that mass doesnt equal size. That is why humanoid robots vs chicken walkers is such a huge problem in MWO.

[Weeny Machine]

FupDup, on 18 March 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

The examples you provided should very clearly answer your own question.

A Dire Wolf being the same height as a Viper is stupid. A Stormcrow being the same size as an Urbanmech is stupid. Etc.


The reason is that in MWO, the size of a target is very, very important because it's easier to shoot a big target than a small target. In BT, the size of a target does not have ANY impact other than cosmetic. A small target is just as easy to hit as a big target in TT.

Making little mechs bigger or big mechs smaller would royally screw over weight class balance.

You mean...for example making Wolfhounds as tall as Griffins would be problematic for the light mech? Yeah, that would be a problem. Luckily this is in MWO not...oh wait...

The 35t light mechs are really too easy too hit for the amount of damage they soak up.

[Widowmaker1981]

Dogstar, on 19 March 2017 - 04:40 AM, said:

The problem is not one of scaling! Scaling mechs by volume is an excellent solution.

The problem is that some mechs are short and fat and other mechs are tall and thin. This particularly benefits chicken walker type mechs that have deep, high volume torsos - they end up being much shorter, and thus significantly harder to hit an easier to spread damage than humanoid mechs (from the front anyway).

What's needed is for overheight mechs to be remodelled with shorter fatter/deeper components thus reducing their frontal aspect.

Except that tell spindly humanoid mechs have a narrow, hard to hit, usually shielded by arms, side profile. Swings and roundabouts.

You can say most fire comes from the front, but when it does you can see it, and know to twist. The number of egg shaped chicken walkers ive removed a ST from with laser fire before they even knew they were being shot at is huge (because there is very little cockpit feedback from laser fire especially, so the first thing they know is 'Left torso critical damage' -> boom.)

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 20 March 2017 - 07:11 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

umm no. My son is almost 4 feet all. If I was twice his size, I'd be 8 feet. Im 6 foot. The point is that mass doesnt equal size. That is why humanoid robots vs chicken walkers is such a huge problem in MWO.

by size were talking about overall volume not just height

we live in a three dimensional world, not flatland.

[SmokedJag]

Khobai, on 20 March 2017 - 10:11 AM, said:

by size were talking about overall volume not just height
.

Volume (and thus mass at a constant density) is cubed, not squared. A 2mx2xm2m cube is 8 cubic meters; a 3x3x3 cube is *27.* A straight cube with twice the physical dimensions will have EIGHT times the volume and so eight times the mass if made of the same stuff. Much more if parts of it are denser i.e. Dire Whale arm pods that mass more than a Locust.

Again, this rule has never been followed in BT art or mechanics. No attempt made.

Edited by SmokedJag, 20 March 2017 - 10:53 AM.

[mogs01gt]

Khobai, on 20 March 2017 - 10:11 AM, said:

by size were talking about overall volume not just height
we live in a three dimensional world, not flatland.

But we play in a game based in 2d. So all that matters are the flat profiles we are shooting at. Each flat profile should represent the size of the mech. Example: A front profile of a 100t mech shouldnt have the same number of pixels as a 80t mech.

If we had real armor and not a set numerical value, then precision shooting would actually matter(like in lore). That is why set numerical values is not a good representation of armor.