44 replies to this topic

[G4LV4TR0N]

Could anyone tell me how it happened that MWO mech sizes are so different from BT mech sizes? If we would follow BT scaling, then MWO Dire Wolf should be of MWO Viper size. Or MWO Storm Crow should be of MWO Urbanmech size. What is wrong with those BT mech sizes that PGI decided to rescale them to their own liking?

https://i.imgur.com/g7JDxEu.png

https://i.imgur.com/moO901v.jpg

[Juodas Varnas]

G4LV4TR0N, on 18 March 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

Could anyone tell me how it happened that MWO mech sizes are so different from BT mech sizes? If we would follow BT scaling, then MWO Dire Wolf should be of MWO Viper size. Or MWO Storm Crow should be of MWO Urbanmech size. What is wrong with those BT mech sizes that PGI decided to rescale them to their own liking?

https://i.imgur.com/g7JDxEu.png

https://i.imgur.com/moO901v.jpg

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

Thanks, but no thanks.

[G4LV4TR0N]

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

[FupDup]

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.

Edited by FupDup, 18 March 2017 - 11:51 AM.

[G4LV4TR0N]

That was actually comparison between BT Dire Wolf and MWO Viper, both bit over 12m, MWO Dire Wolf is bit over 16m while BT Viper is around 9m. Same for Urbanmech/Storm Crow.

Edited by G4LV4TR0N, 18 March 2017 - 11:55 AM.

[FupDup]

G4LV4TR0N, on 18 March 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

That was actually comparison between BT Dire Wolf and MWO Viper, both bit over 12m, MWO Dire Wolf is bit over 16m while BT Viper is around 9m. Same for Urbanmech/Storm Crow.

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.

[Juodas Varnas]

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.

Well...
If OP uses streaks only, i guess the size of the mech doesn't really matter to him

[Khobai]

Quote

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

I think they went too far in the opposite direction though. Assaults feel too big to me. Their huge size makes them very easy to core out which largely defeats the purpose of an assault and often makes heavies more survivable because of their smaller hit boxes and better balance of other attributes like speed and torso twist

An atlas should only be 3 times the volume of a jenner (based on it weighing 3 times more). But in MWO its much bigger than 3 times the volume of a Jenner. Its like 4-5 times the size of a jenner. many of the assaults were overscaled and it hurts them big time. the armor quirks, while nice, dont really compensate for that.

The survivability disparity between heavies and assaults really needs to be addressed at some point. Assaults should be the natural predators of heavies not the other way around. Most assaults definitely need to be tankier than they currently are.

Edited by Khobai, 18 March 2017 - 12:07 PM.

[G4LV4TR0N]

Quote

I think they went too far in the opposite direction though. Assaults feel too big to me. Their huge size makes them very easy to core out which largely defeats the purpose of an assault and often makes heavies more survivable because of their smaller hit boxes and better balance of other attributes like speed and torso twist.

Funny, but true. Take a look at Executioner, in MWO it's over 18m tall. This makes it Center Torso hitbox bigger than whole MWO Locust mech profile. In fact it's probably over 10m, so we're at Adder size.

To add more, Executioners Center Torso is always exposed, because even when pilot completely twists it(and for MWO Executioner complete twist is not even minimal required 90 degree), then remaining exposed area is still larger than CT hitboxes of many Heavy mechs.

What is funny, when you look at BT Executioner side profile, you will see that massive right arm is actually perfect shield arm there, completely covering profile and even having graphically exposed additional armor plates. But in MWO game this arm won't shield anything.

Edited by G4LV4TR0N, 18 March 2017 - 12:46 PM.

[Adridos]

G4LV4TR0N, on 18 March 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

What is wrong with those BT mech sizes that PGI decided to rescale them to their own liking?

There don't exist any.

If you quoted 5 books, you'd get 5 disjoint figures.
If you measured 5 drawings, you'd get 5 different sizes.
If you tried to apply 5 different presented scales, you'd end up with 5 very different size profiles.

Battletech has had zero actual consistency or canonicity in this regard and every subsequent novel/game/rulebook did it differently.

[G4LV4TR0N]

There are so called "Technical Readouts" that are used as official reference and those pictures I've posted come from those readouts.

[Deathlike]

You do realize that if you scaled the mechs to whatever arbitrary standard that isn't "Light mech are small, Assault mechs are big", then you know mech balance would be borked that much harder?

Size does matter (this and many other jokes).

[FLG 01]

G4LV4TR0N, on 18 March 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

https://i.imgur.com/moO901v.jpg

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

Btw., from a recent book:

TRO:3039 (2009)

[SmokedJag]

BT art is arbitrary and has nothing to do with the game mechanics. There is wide, wide variation in things that are supposed to have comparable armor and have comparable mass.

[FupDup]

SmokedJag, on 18 March 2017 - 02:32 PM, said:

BT art is arbitrary and has nothing to do with the game mechanics. There is wide, wide variation in things that are supposed to have comparable armor and have comparable mass.

Kind of like the Omnimechs that share the same leg art, despite having different tonnages, different armor types and amounts on those legs, different internal structure type and amount inside of those legs, and different critical slot allocations inside of those legs.

Edited by FupDup, 18 March 2017 - 06:34 PM.

[TercieI]

Khobai, on 18 March 2017 - 11:59 AM, said:

I think they went too far in the opposite direction though. Assaults feel too big to me.

You think it's assaults that are the problem?!?!? Lololol.

[FupDup]

TercieI, on 18 March 2017 - 02:37 PM, said:

You think it's assaults that are the problem?!?!? Lololol.

35 Ton Light Mechs said:

Livin' large!

[Khobai]

Quote

You think it's assaults that are the problem?!?!? Lololol.

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.

Quote

BT art is arbitrary and has nothing to do with the game mechanics. There is wide, wide variation in things that are supposed to have comparable armor and have comparable mass.

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.

assault scaling is really bad in this game for a lot of assaults and its one of the big reasons they cant tank nearly as well as they should be able to.

I honestly dont think its too much to ask for to have mechs be proportionally scaled based on their tonnage. As an example: an atlas should be three times the size of a jenner and twice the size of a hunchback. Not 4-5 times the size of a jenner and 3 times the size of a hunchback.

Edited by Khobai, 18 March 2017 - 06:06 PM.

[FupDup]

Bruh, PGI already did volumetric scaling like you wanted. They made the Jenner massively larger than it used to be.

[TercieI]

FupDup, on 18 March 2017 - 06:11 PM, said:

Bruh, PGI already did volumetric scaling like you wanted. They made the Jenner massively larger than it used to be.

And volumetric actually helps assaults, since surface area is a bigger factor in determining how hard or easy a target is.