42 replies to this topic

[razenWing]

Long time no see...

So rehashing an old theory topic cause I don't believe this has ever been done.

So I basically take all the tonnage and normalized all the mechs assuming same density using cube root analysis (I forgot the scientific term, but it's the same analysis they use to determine the theoretical maximum size of Earth's creatures) to figure out the proper mech scaling in this game.

Now, it may be fair to ask why I should assume the same density. I think the logical explanation is that because the realistic physical property of steel and the amount of weight they can carry, we shouldn't have to worry about mech legs being crushed under its own weight. Basically, we did not exceed the material limitation yet. (At least that's the assumption based on working with construction and knowing a little bit about foundation building and experience)

But anyways, without further adieu, here's my finding:


20 2.71 1.00
25 2.92 1.08
30 3.11 1.14
35 3.27 1.21
40 3.42 1.26
45 3.56 1.31
50 3.68 1.36
55 3.80 1.40
60 3.91 1.44
65 4.02 1.48
70 4.12 1.52
75 4.22 1.55
80 4.31 1.59
85 4.40 1.62
90 4.48 1.65
95 4.56 1.68
100 4.64 1.71

If you will excuse me for formatting, this is direct copy paste from Excel.
First column is the weight, second column is the cube root (normalized standard), and third column is the size comparison to 20.

What I found is a possible way for mech scaling to make scientific sense, rather than relying on lore and TT drawings. And unsurprisingly, a 100 tonner is only 71% bigger than a 20 tonner. Which means, a locust should reach up to at least ~60% of the height of an Atlas.

Now granted, different mechs have different shapes, thus different L/W/H ratio, but I think scientifically, again normalizing for same density (and even if it's not same density, you would scale up for heavier mechs, making the size disparity even smaller), light mechs should not be as small as they are in game, and mech sizes should be a lot more similar VISUALLY.

This would resolve a lot of issues for cockpit size (though not eliminate them entirely, for example, no matter how hard you try, there's just no way to fit a human inside an Atlas' eye, as cool as it might look).

Now, I imagine a lot of light pilots would be pissed off if their locusts are 60% of the height of an Atlas, making them super easy kills... in a way. But what I have to say to that is...

Is it time to increase complexity to the game so that lights/mediums can earn money outside of damage and kills? O_O

Edited by razenWing, 11 September 2017 - 08:42 AM.

[Heffay]

Quote

Is it time to increase complexity to the game so that lights/mediums can earn money outside of damage and kills?

No.

The current scaling is fine. It's a game. Light mechs look small, assault mechs look large. Gameplay > realism every day of the week.

[razenWing]

Heffay, on 11 September 2017 - 09:23 AM, said:

No.

The current scaling is fine. It's a game. Light mechs look small, assault mechs look large. Gameplay > realism every day of the week.

It will be different gameplay, how would there not be gameplay with a system and scaling change?

And one doesn't conflict with another, you can have both...

PS "small" or "large" is only a matter of perspective. I will assume you are 6ft tall by average American standard. Lebron James is 6'8". Technically, he's only 11% taller than you. But if you stand next to Lebron James, you would think that's a big dood too.

(And 11% is far less than the 70% we are talking about here)

[Dread Render]

interesting... cause a Spider only looks like the size of a Dire Wolf's leg in game, no?

[Rovertoo]

Im also curious about the density of the mechs in general, isnt it true that with the scale we have in game now an atlas that size would have to be made of 100 tons of styrofoam?

That said I am not opposed to having more consistent scaling! If we did light mechs would need some serious buffs, but still, I think it would be cool.

[Verilligo]

razenWing, on 11 September 2017 - 08:41 AM, said:

Now, it may be fair to ask why I should assume the same density. I think the logical explanation is that because the realistic physical property of steel and the amount of weight they can carry, we shouldn't have to worry about mech legs being crushed under its own weight. Basically, we did not exceed the material limitation yet. (At least that's the assumption based on working with construction and knowing a little bit about foundation building and experience)

Your assumption is in error. For one, the construction material used in the building of Battlemechs is vastly different from currently available materials in the real world. For another, physics in the Battletech universe does not work like real physics. Battletech violates thermodynamics more often than pedestrians jaywalk, let alone what it does with Newton's laws. It absolutely has to, because otherwise no one would use Battlemechs as they're vastly inferior to tanks if placed under real world laws.

[Pjwned]

That could work if light mechs were even more thin than spiders are now as a result.

Otherwise **** no.

[Nightbird]

For what its worth ravenwing, I agree with you completely. Instead of making lighter mechs larger though, I would make heavier mechs smaller so they don't need so much armor/structure to be viable. Right now the problem is PGI is prioritizing the arcade crowd instead of the sim crowd on sizing (quirks, weapon stats, everything), but the result is convoluted balancing systems. They could have just given the **** mechs a 200% cbill bonus and people would make it work, but no, have a bunch of random quirks instead hahaha

[Pjwned]

NlGHTBlRD, on 11 September 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

For what its worth ravenwing, I agree with you completely. Instead of making lighter mechs larger though, I would make heavier mechs smaller so they don't need so much armor/structure to be viable. Right now the problem is PGI is prioritizing the arcade crowd instead of the sim crowd on sizing (quirks, weapon stats, everything), but the result is convoluted balancing systems. They could have just given the **** mechs a 200% cbill bonus and people would make it work, but no, have a bunch of random quirks instead hahaha

How about we just remove their quirks and not make them smaller, and then remove quirks from all the other mechs to compensate too.

Sounds better to me.

[Y E O N N E]

Pjwned, on 11 September 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

How about we just remove their quirks and not make them smaller, and then remove quirks from all the other mechs to compensate too.

Sounds better to me.

Because that didn't work when it was a thing the first time, nor did it work when tried on PTS since then.

Absolute limitations are in play and are the problem, not relative ones. Above size X, too easy to hit. Below size Y, too hard to hit. Modifiers for agility and geo.

[numb_nuts]

I smell ******** !

lol ... it wont me say ******** . . . the game will let me blow, laser and explode beings, but in the forums I cant say ******** !
Oh what NA fudge butter !

[Khobai]

assault mechs need to be smaller
lights dont need to be bigger

[numb_nuts]

Bovine excitement

[Pjwned]

Yeonne Greene, on 11 September 2017 - 10:50 AM, said:

Because that didn't work when it was a thing the first time, nor did it work when tried on PTS since then.

Absolute limitations are in play and are the problem, not relative ones. Above size X, too easy to hit. Below size Y, too hard to hit. Modifiers for agility and geo.

You mean it didn't work when quirks didn't exist and mech scaling & tech balance were both atrociously bad? Because I don't recall a single time that removing quirks has been tested since implemented as the complete joke that they are, or if it ever was then it wasn't without other severe issues that skewed the balance.

Not that balance is ideal even now years later, but it's somehow better than it was despite PGI being PGI.

[Gamuray]

razenWing, on 11 September 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

It will be different gameplay, how would there not be gameplay with a system and scaling change?

And one doesn't conflict with another, you can have both...

PS "small" or "large" is only a matter of perspective. I will assume you are 6ft tall by average American standard. Lebron James is 6'8". Technically, he's only 11% taller than you. But if you stand next to Lebron James, you would think that's a big dood too.

(And 11% is far less than the 70% we are talking about here)

Honestly, I agree with you that scaling in MWO is way off. Unfortunately, I doubt PGI is doing or will do any kind of scientific measurements to try and get the mechs to the right scale. I mean, look down in a city at the cars. Those cars may be half a ton. 200 of those isn't going to fill the locust.

Lore scale is actually a lot better than pgi has done. Not perfect, but better. Scaling for them is that a commando is 9 meters and a banshee is 14.5 ish meters. They should probably be even closer in height, but it's better. So this makes the commando the height of a residential house... maybe. And the banshee, being close to atlas height, is a bit under twice that. Yet PGI has them competing with low level skyscapers for height.

So here's a question for everyone. If our mechs were shrunk to appropriate size, how would aiming, perceived speed, etc. be affected? My guess... Mechs would be a lot smaller, which means maps will look A LOT bigger. This also means that mechs will appear to move MUCH MUCH faster. SO. Even if light mechs are about half the height of assaults (the locust right now barely makes it to an Atlas knee), the perceived speed increase and perceived range increases is going to make their speed and half size really hard to hit. On the other end, slow assaults may actually be able to tank (right now, it's quite easy to go "I'm gonna JUST shoot that ST over there), since they will generally seem farther away. Also, long range weapons would definitely feel like long range within their optimal. Currently, I often feel that optimal for most sniping weapons is closer to mid range.

Gameplay or Realism? Screw the "OR". I want both. Do the measurements to make a realistic Mech scale, THEN adjust maneuverability, heat, etc. to needs. And quirks if they're needed.. I suppose. But they should be last resort, not slapped on to everything, because most of the recent mechs should not have needed them in the first place.

[InfinityBall]

Lights would be as easy to hit as large mediums. It would be a balance disaster. They have good gameplay reasons for making the lights that small, even if the scale means that if a Locust weighs 20 tons, an Atlas weighs over 1000

[Khobai]

Quote

Lights would be as easy to hit as large mediums. It would be a balance disaster. They have good gameplay reasons for making the lights that small, even if the scale means that if a Locust weighs 20 tons, an Atlas weighs over 1000

like I said. its assaults that are too big. not lights that are too small.

the atlas is like 25%-33% bigger than it should actually be.

[InfinityBall]

Khobai, on 11 September 2017 - 08:23 PM, said:

like I said. its assaults that are too big. not lights that are too small.

the atlas is like 25%-33% bigger than it should actually be.

Oh, so lights wouldn't be underpowered, heavies and assaults and mediums would become overpowered. but lights wouldn't be underpowered.

[Khobai]

Quote

Oh, so lights wouldn't be underpowered, heavies and assaults and mediums would become overpowered. but lights wouldn't be underpowered.

you make no sense. why would heavies become overpowered? heavies wouldnt get changed. only assaults.

only a select handful of assaults are actually good because they have high mounted hardpoints that allow them to minimize exposing their oversized hitboxes. the rest of the assaults are way too big.

their slowness and size completely counteracts the pitiful extra armor they get. theyre less survivable than heavies in most cases, thats not right. assaults should be much tougher than heavies and scaling them down would help with that.

Edited by Khobai, 12 September 2017 - 03:22 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Pjwned, on 11 September 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

You mean it didn't work when quirks didn't exist and mech scaling & tech balance were both atrociously bad? Because I don't recall a single time that removing quirks has been tested since implemented as the complete joke that they are, or if it ever was then it wasn't without other severe issues that skewed the balance.

Not that balance is ideal even now years later, but it's somehow better than it was despite PGI being PGI.

They did it during the ED PTS.

Also, base-level balance is still horrendously bad. There isn't a single IS 'Mech not leaning on quirks to be as good as it is.

Ergo, I stand by my previous statement that your proposal would be, likewise, bad.