40 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

The last time we had a resize it took a lot of resouces but all current mechs are size appropriate to PGI's current system, so don't expect anything...

PGI does not cause mech sizes by volume, but by front and side profile. Therefore, instead of scaling with the cube root of tonnage, PGI sizes with the square root, making any comparison between two mechs feel intuitively wrong.

Edited by Nightbird, 31 October 2017 - 07:18 AM.

[Dr Hobo]

Nightbird, on 31 October 2017 - 07:17 AM, said:

The last time we had a resize it took a lot of resouces but all current mechs are size appropriate to PGI's current system, so don't expect anything...

PGI does not cause mech sizes by volume, but by front and side profile. Therefore, instead of scaling with the cube root of tonnage, PGI sizes with the square root, making any comparison between two mechs feel intuitively wrong.

And it's strange they do that,because an EXE is 14.something meters tall,one of the tallest mechs in existence.

Yet here in MWO,an Atlas and EXE appear to be much,much taller.

A locust would be incredibly tiny,and Flea's aren't much bigger than some large trucks.

[The Mysterious Fox]

cant say im a big fan of volume-metric sizing since that assumes consistent density which is silly. animation wise, every mech since civil war needs their animations redone

[Khobai]

pretty much every assault mech is way too damn big

assault mechs need to be smaller so they can distribute damage across different locations better

right now its way to easy to just drill out the CT of an assault mech because they cant torso twist for crap anymore

heavies survive better due to their smaller hitboxes, superior agility, and better speed which is just wrong. assaults should be the toughest mechs to kill on the battlefield, not heavies.

Quote

cant say im a big fan of volume-metric sizing since that assumes consistent density which is silly. animation wise, every mech since civil war needs their animations redone

volumetric scaling is fine but PGI needs to use an exponential curve for volume instead of a linear curve. Because the ability to pinpoint specific hit locations increases exponentially with size. Not only are the hitboxes bigger, but assaults are less able to torso twist, and less able to retreat from a bad situation.

assault mechs being scaled linearly just makes their hitboxes way too easy to pinpoint. they need to be smaller. A 100 ton mech for example shouldnt be twice the volume of a 50 ton mech. it should be less than twice the volume of a 50 ton mech.

Edited by Khobai, 31 October 2017 - 08:20 AM.

[Lightfoot]

I think the 3-D models in MWO are the best ever. No question. Some could be tuned up I suppose.

The re-scale was flawed in many ways and didn't take into account obvious things like the larger the Mech Class the larger the weapon bays will be as well as equipment space. Result were things like the Grasshopper being as tall as an Atlas with bigger CT hitboxes. Sorry, but that Atlas can carry much more and that costs volume not just weight. So basing the re-scale purely on weight was incorrect. Even so, how is the Shadow Cat bigger than the Nova when most of it's load-out is in the arm pods? So the re-scale was not well thought out even if it met the criteria PGI had constructed. MWO is the only MechWarrior game I know of with heavies as big as 100 tonners.

[Revis Volek]

Bombast, on 30 October 2017 - 06:59 PM, said:

Related: The Catapult needs it's door shadows to be fixed. Super old problem, still super annoying.

Same with the light bar on the K9, its a lightbar UFO currently.

[stealthraccoon]

Hunchback needs dynamic hunches!!!
Hunch size should directly correlate to size/number of weapons (if any).

Also, please make that third mount on Urbanmech arms to string vertically instead of to the side - the irregular position really throws off my kimchi energy.

Edited by stealthraccoon, 31 October 2017 - 06:08 PM.

[Requiemking]

Lightfoot, on 31 October 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

I think the 3-D models in MWO are the best ever. No question. Some could be tuned up I suppose.

The re-scale was flawed in many ways and didn't take into account obvious things like the larger the Mech Class the larger the weapon bays will be as well as equipment space. Result were things like the Grasshopper being as tall as an Atlas with bigger CT hitboxes. Sorry, but that Atlas can carry much more and that costs volume not just weight. So basing the re-scale purely on weight was incorrect. Even so, how is the Shadow Cat bigger than the Nova when most of it's load-out is in the arm pods? So the re-scale was not well thought out even if it met the criteria PGI had constructed. MWO is the only MechWarrior game I know of with heavies as big as 100 tonners.

MWO is also the only MW game in existence where 35 ton Lights are towering Kaijuu, and 100 tonners would give even Shin Goji a run for his money.

[Insanity09]

I do think there does need to be some re-scale work done. Again.


I notice all these suggestions (excepting animation related) basically make mechs smaller and thinner.
I think some mechs need to get bigger, and others do need to shrink a bit.

QKD's thinner? Shorter, yes, but thinner... hmm.
I think the LBK needs to be a bit larger. Several times I've run across them and thought they looked like a medium size mech.

To reiterate, some size changes are needed, agreed.

[King Kahuna]

PHX. Those Phoenix Hawks are huge.

[Y E O N N E]

Nightbird, on 31 October 2017 - 07:17 AM, said:

PGI does not cause mech sizes by volume, but by front and side profile. Therefore, instead of scaling with the cube root of tonnage, PGI sizes with the square root, making any comparison between two mechs feel intuitively wrong.

That's not what they do. They do it by volume according to some internal scalar constant, but then they make some judgement calls and adjust from there.

Back around the time the rescale happened, there were massive debates on how 'Mechs should be scaled. PGI and their defenders were the volumetric camp, the other camp was 2D profile. From a gameplay perspective, the latter is the superior option provided you are adjusting to normalize expected durability for 'Mechs at that weight because all you ever see at any given moment is a silhouette. It's just the nature of projecting a 3D image onto a 2D space. But that isn't what PGI did.

It's actually scaling by cube root of volume that makes it feel unintuitive, because as you get larger the apparent changes in volume become less recognizable. So Assaults seem to taper off in growth while the lighter 'Mechs seem to just explode as you go up the scale.

[Insanity09]

By true cube root methods, tonnage-related, an atlas would only be about 50% more tall/deep/wide as a commando. That would feel very wrong. (4 times the tonnage, cube root of 4 is ~1.58)
Even going by silhouette, that's the square root, so an atlas would be twice the height/depth/width of a commando.
Basically, using pure math without other considerations the size differences would be very small and feel wrong.

Clearly something else needs to be done.

[Requiemking]

Insanity09, on 31 October 2017 - 09:56 PM, said:

By true cube root methods, tonnage-related, an atlas would only be about 50% more tall/deep/wide as a commando. That would feel very wrong. (4 times the tonnage, cube root of 4 is ~1.58)
Even going by silhouette, that's the square root, so an atlas would be twice the height/depth/width of a commando.
Basically, using pure math without other considerations the size differences would be very small and feel wrong.

Clearly something else needs to be done.

Unfortunately, many players are entirely opposed to arbitrary scaling or anything that even vaguely resembles arbitrary scaling, which is slightly disappointing because, in a sci-fi game where reality has long been thrown out the window, arbitrary is more balanced that realistic.

[Y E O N N E]

Insanity09, on 31 October 2017 - 09:56 PM, said:

By true cube root methods, tonnage-related, an atlas would only be about 50% more tall/deep/wide as a commando. That would feel very wrong. (4 times the tonnage, cube root of 4 is ~1.58)
Even going by silhouette, that's the square root, so an atlas would be twice the height/depth/width of a commando.
Basically, using pure math without other considerations the size differences would be very small and feel wrong.

Clearly something else needs to be done.

I don't think PGI uses a single density constant to anchor the scaling. I think they have one per weight class.

There are also the intricacies of the geometry that present a lot of dead space, so the 'Mech needs to be larger than you would expect to compensate.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 31 October 2017 - 10:38 PM.

[Davegt27]

my Jager DD with 5 UAC2s

[Davegt27]

should have 3 Rac2s

[Nightbird]

Yeonne Greene, on 31 October 2017 - 08:59 PM, said:

That's not what they do. They do it by volume according to some internal scalar constant, but then they make some judgement calls and adjust from there.

Back around the time the rescale happened, there were massive debates on how 'Mechs should be scaled. PGI and their defenders were the volumetric camp, the other camp was 2D profile. From a gameplay perspective, the latter is the superior option provided you are adjusting to normalize expected durability for 'Mechs at that weight because all you ever see at any given moment is a silhouette. It's just the nature of projecting a 3D image onto a 2D space. But that isn't what PGI did.

It's actually scaling by cube root of volume that makes it feel unintuitive, because as you get larger the apparent changes in volume become less recognizable. So Assaults seem to taper off in growth while the lighter 'Mechs seem to just explode as you go up the scale.

https://mwomercs.com...es-and-numbers/

Look at the average torso volume since the methodology is clearer. 20 tonner has 1/12th the torso volume of 100tonners. 35tonners have 1/6 the torso volume of 100 tonners. 50tonners have 2/5th volume of 100 tonners. . Assaults too large, lights too small, though my preference is to keep locust the same size then make all other mechs smaller. Small mechs=harder to focus components=longer ttk.

Edited by Nightbird, 02 November 2017 - 03:34 PM.

[JadePanther]

I NOMINATE THE PHOENIX HAWK..

With the hellspawn coming out in the same weght class with an obvious chassis thats gonna be more towards cicada sized that can go as fast as a phoenix hawk with torso hardpoints and missiles everywhere.. The hellspawn is a nobrainer replacement for a medium mech the size of a black knight with all the weapons in the arms..

redsign / resize of that mech is the only thing, other than buffing mobility and quirking the ever loving [REDACTED] out of it, that will save that mech from hitting the absolute bottom of the pile.. If they think spiders havent gotten played much wait til the hellspawn completely replaces the phoenix hawk.

[ocular tb]

I nominate the Jenner. This was one of the lights that was hit hardest in the rescale and still hasn’t fully recovered. It’s quirks are pretty lackluster (I think it’s only ct+11) and the skill tree only helps so much. Instead of more quirks that typically miss the mark, a rescale would help it a lot more. Other mechs could stand to be smaller too but this is the one I want. Since a rescale won’t happen I think some ST armor buffs would help somewhat because contrary to what some say the Jenner STs DO get hit and are quite squishy without any armor quirks.

[Lily from animove]

don't touch my adder it's fine the way it is.

Insanity09, on 31 October 2017 - 09:56 PM, said:

By true cube root methods, tonnage-related, an atlas would only be about 50% more tall/deep/wide as a commando. That would feel very wrong. (4 times the tonnage, cube root of 4 is ~1.58)
Even going by silhouette, that's the square root, so an atlas would be twice the height/depth/width of a commando.
Basically, using pure math without other considerations the size differences would be very small and feel wrong.

Clearly something else needs to be done.

gameplay needs to be done. there is no reality logic to apply which would help to imprve the mechs for MWO. that can work on battletech where sizes don't matter and dices roll but in MWO we need just gamplay (mostly balance) related adjustments.

Edited by Lily from animove, 12 November 2017 - 08:01 AM.