42 replies to this topic

[Queen of England]

They already did this some time ago - the resize was based on measured volume and an assumption of consistent density.

[Khobai]

Quote

They already did this some time ago - the resize was based on measured volume and an assumption of consistent density.

then why is an atlas more than 3 times the volume of a jenner?

if both the jenner and atlas have consistent density, and the atlas weighs 3 times more, it should only be 3 times the volume. Not the 5-6 times the volume it actually is. Which means atlases are like half as dense as jenners? That makes no !@#$ing sense.

the scaling of assault mechs is very wrong.

the scaling of heavies is forgivable because heavies are fast and go like 70kph-90kph. Improper scaling affects assaults much more because of how slow they are. Assaults like the direwolf get completely boned because not only is it slow, but its scaling is terrible, and it doesnt even get structure quirks either.

Edited by Khobai, 12 September 2017 - 08:48 AM.

[G4LV4TR0N]

Khobai, on 11 September 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:

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

yes

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 12 September 2017 - 03:17 AM, said:

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.

So basically you'd make assaults the same size as heavies or smaller than heavies, as certain heavies are already pretty close to assault size.

[Battlemaster56]

Khobai, on 12 September 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

then why is an atlas more than 3 times the volume of a jenner?

if both the jenner and atlas have consistent density, and the atlas weighs 3 times more, it should only be 3 times the volume. Not the 5-6 times the volume it actually is. Which means atlases are like half as dense as jenners? That makes no !@#$ing sense.

the scaling of assault mechs is very wrong.

the scaling of heavies is forgivable because heavies are fast and go like 70kph-90kph. Improper scaling affects assaults much more because of how slow they are. Assaults like the direwolf get completely boned because not only is it slow, but its scaling is terrible, and it doesnt even get structure quirks either.

The Atlas have straight legs, that doesn't bend, also it have hips that add to it size. Also you trying to apply real world logic into a video game base on a story universe where our rules of physics and other fancy stuff cannot be simply applied to.

Also most of the scaling in the assaults are alright nothing to extreme, and I'm certain the Dire Wolf got smaller during the resize with maybe the Warhawk. And the Dire Wolf is it own can of worms concerning quirks and right now not in balance office's radar

[Pjwned]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 September 2017 - 07:59 AM, said:

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.

I would think that it goes without saying to also actually fix the balance issues like PGI said they were going to, but that was obviously a load of **** yet again.

[Khobai]

Quote

So basically you'd make assaults the same size as heavies or smaller than heavies, as certain heavies are already pretty close to assault size.

sure why not. assaults are slow. heavies arnt. heavies would still have much better survivability. but it would be a little more balanced at least, instead of heavies being way more survivable than assaults.

the extra speed/agility heavies get is magnitudes better than the pitiful extra armor/structure assaults get. thats not right. heavies should not be that much more survivable than assaults.

the scaling of assaults is counterintuitive and makes them significantly less survivable than they should be.

Edited by Khobai, 12 September 2017 - 02:28 PM.

[Nightbird]

There is no scaling right now PERIOD, whatever sizing PGI followed is cartoon logic. Just take 5 locusts, turn them into goo, and shape them into an Atlas, you'll run out of material at the legs. Complete joke.

Edited by NlGHTBlRD, 12 September 2017 - 02:50 PM.

[InspectorG]

Khobai, on 12 September 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

the scaling of heavies is forgivable because heavies are fast and go like 70kph-90kph. Improper scaling affects assaults much more because of how slow they are. Assaults like the direwolf get completely boned because not only is it slow, but its scaling is terrible, and it doesnt even get structure quirks either.

Agreed.

What do you think about the HP quirks on the Annihilators?

Given PGI likely wont change Scale at this point and god knows if Assaults will recoup any agility, should the Anni quirks be baseline for 100 ton mechs?

[Khobai]

hp quirks are okay but I think hardpoint locations and speed are more important

high mounted hardpoints and being able to go at least 65+kph are the best traits for assaults IMO

I mean even if the direwolf got hp quirks it still wouldnt be great. it would just be mediocre instead of completely awful.

[SpectreHD]

If we are to prioritise gameplay over real world physics, then some of the tallest Assaults and even some Heavies like the Black Knight and Grasshopper need to be smaller. You know, for gameplay reasons.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

the Right Arm of a Centurion with different weapons have a other Densitiy and Materials as the left arm by some proportions:) the Scaling is dump a 75t Balck Kinight is now 17-18m tall like a 100 t Atlas and a 65t Catapult going to his Hip and the only real Sizefactors the Cockpits ,or now the Locust ist driving by Dwarfs and the Assualts by Elementars in Armor?

[Trissila]

Verilligo, on 11 September 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

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.

This is why I always had a secret soft spot for Heavy Gear, Mechwarrior's only real competitor back in the day. Gears were MUCH smaller than battlemechs, not much bigger than human-sized (humans typically took up most of the torso section of a gear, and typically carried hand-held primary weapons with shoulder- or back-mounted rockets/missiles/cannons. In that universe, weapon penetration was a serious consideration, with primaries typically trading penetrating power for ammo count. And tanks were still very formidable assets, actually quite scary for gears to go up against, because tanks weighed a LOT more than gears did and could thus carry much more potent weaponry and much thicker armor that was resistant to a lot of gear-based weaponry outside of snub cannons and anti-tank missiles.

[The6thMessenger]

Don't you want to toss Log in your calculation?

Anyways, resizing mechs would probably do more harm than good at this point, cause it's another *********** of experimentation, of reconfiguring the weapon systems that would still provide balanced TTK.

Also that 60% height of Atlas for the locust thing, pretty transparent man.

Gamuray, on 11 September 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

I mean, look down in a city at the cars. Those cars may be half a ton.

I don't know, there are cars right now that's just around 1 tons, such as the 2012 Honda Civic LX Coupe Sedan. Not to mention that those are just the cases. Not to mention that what you're seeing are just body kits. There's an awful lot of space inside a car. An equipment may be high-density and tightly packed as opposed of a car.

Gamuray, on 11 September 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

200 of those isn't going to fill the locust.

Using this as basis: PB 2x LMG [2500] + 4x ERML, XL180

Don't exaggerate, you just need to fit 16 of those.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 September 2017 - 10:28 PM.

[qS Sachiel]

I would argue that the larger a mech becomes, the less dense it is. There is more space for things like larger heat sinks (more surface area open to fluid = more volume free), spaced armour, etc...
Similar issues apply to boats, but that's a bit moot as the weight of a mech is spread only across its feet (if discussions buoyancy).

That, and I'm familiar an happy enough with the arbitrary sizing. Would have preferred pre re scale sized but this is the world we live in.

No thanks.

[InfinityBall]

qS Sachiel, on 12 September 2017 - 10:36 PM, said:

I would argue that the larger a mech becomes, the less dense it is. There is more space for things like larger heat sinks (more surface area open to fluid = more volume free), spaced armour, etc...
Similar issues apply to boats, but that's a bit moot as the weight of a mech is spread only across its feet (if discussions buoyancy).

That, and I'm familiar an happy enough with the arbitrary sizing. Would have preferred pre re scale sized but this is the world we live in.

No thanks.

Yes, because the Atlas that is 60 times larger than the Locust has 600 heat sinks, that will explain its low weight, right?

[qS Sachiel]

InfinityBall, on 12 September 2017 - 10:39 PM, said:

Yes, because the Atlas that is 60 times larger than the Locust has 600 heat sinks, that will explain its low weight, right?

I don't understand what you're trying to say?
are you suggesting the atlas has 600 heat sinks and is lighter than a locust?

What my point sought to illustrate is that it would appear the OP is making a comparison of logic vs gameplay here. I don't agree fundmentally. Now that that's out of the way, I also intended to show that different components/parts/regions of a mech will have densities that differ. If a light mech weighs 20ton say, the legs will need to be very strong. Strength is usually associated with density (though again life v game). Regardless, the OP appears to disregard that different areas of a mech will be vastly different in density to other areas, and this will influence the VOLUME. Not height. not breadth, but total VOLUME, while allowing the total weight to remain constant at a given tonnage bracket/designation.

What about FF and LFF armor? There is zero aesthetic change / point of difference between a mech with standard armour, and FF/LFF despite the armour providing identical armour for significantly less weight. That means that a mech with non-standard armour should be bulkier/puffier (occupy greater volume) directly proportional to the difference in density of the armour.

Why does the locust need to be 60% height to the atlas? It's got long slender legs, and a miniscule capsule of a cockpit/torso. It's basically a seat on chopsticks. By assuming that a: all mechs are equal density, despite vastly different form (and also ignoring that multiple 100t mechs, or any mech of the identical weight bracket have different volumes already, and in previous depictions); and b: that a mech's density is homogeneous across its volume, i feel the changes proposed are flawed.

PGI had to make simplifications to develop the current system, and to communicate & deploy the rescale. I see no reason to add more change, despite the oversimplified nature, because it's just change for the sake of change (with reasoning to support it which i refute).

Edited by qS Sachiel, 12 September 2017 - 11:27 PM.

[Dogstar]

Just to remind everyone that during the rescale the Locust wasn't touched - it's not to scale with other mechs and is actually well undersized for it's weight and volume. Also you're comparing a chicken walker mech to a humanoid mech so the heights cannot compare either.

Thus any comparison of Locust vs [insert random mech] is _never_ going to be worth making and shows a lack of understanding of the issue.

Use a different mech like the Panther. Panther vs Atlas is not nearly as extreme.

Edited by Dogstar, 12 September 2017 - 11:49 PM.

[adamts01]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 September 2017 - 07:59 AM, said:

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.

That's what happens when you base everything off of lore where clans are better, yet have equal numbers fighting against each other. Combine that with the problem of light mechs being worth less and less powerful for CW reasons but treated as equals in QP where 90% of the population lives. They didn't put much thought in to any of this game.

Khobai, on 12 September 2017 - 02:26 PM, said:

sure why not. assaults are slow. heavies arnt. heavies would still have much better survivability. but it would be a little more balanced at least, instead of heavies being way more survivable than assaults.

the extra speed/agility heavies get is magnitudes better than the pitiful extra armor/structure assaults get. thats not right. heavies should not be that much more survivable than assaults.

the scaling of assaults is counterintuitive and makes them significantly less survivable than they should be.

I'm all for standardised sizing, but for gameplay reasons I think they did it all wrong. I quit after the light nerf and just recently played a few dozen matches to see where the game is at. And it sucks. For the sake of gameplay I think there needs to be more distinction between classes. Don't base anything on the class, but on tonnage, but have a more steep line on which everything scales. Leave the Locust small and Atlas big, and just scale everything appropriately in between those. Armor and skill tree stats should also be standardised. It's so ridiculous that lights can tank like they can, and that assaults are just sitting ducks against most heavies. Let assaults and lights and everything get the same armor % on the skill tree, so assaults can tank like they should, for gameplay reasons. Instead of fixing the arm size on the MLX they gave those arms heavy-level hit points? WTF PGI? And decoupling engine size from mobility? Damn you. Maybe lessen the scaling of agility from engines, but give those mechs something. Everything just blurs together on the battlefield now, it just sucks. This game is more polished now than ever, but it has never been more boring.

[kesmai]

So what?
Is that new?
Look at the first images of locusts from early/mid 80's. Guess what fasa used to determined the height, etc of mechs.
Also guess why they completely abandoned the idea. After a short time.
It's someone reinventing the wheel all over here, but not delving deeper than half an inch into the matter.
Using flat formula for pure geometries falls so flat on it's face when the to determine object is not a cube or a sphere.
At least we know now that you are capable of 7th grade maths.

Edited by kesmai, 13 September 2017 - 12:35 AM.