478 replies to this topic

[ZippySpeedMonkey]

it's a terrible idea.

When my 35t Panther is the same height as a 50 ton Hunchback, but towers over a 30t Arctic Cheehtah, or Commando then you know something is wrong.

[LordNothing]

Yeonne Greene, on 07 March 2018 - 11:32 AM, said:

The app has tobe smarter than that. Part of the problem with using volume and surface area is that both are going to count greeble and functionally neutral dead space. That will give you some 'Mechs being too big or too small for their weight relative to a 'Mech that seems "right" .

should really only count collision boxes, not total mech geometry. and i think surface area of those boxes would be the better value (excluding occluded surfaces).

Edited by LordNothing, 07 March 2018 - 02:38 PM.

[Nightbird]

LordNothing, on 07 March 2018 - 02:37 PM, said:

should really only count collision boxes, not total mech geometry. and i think surface area of those boxes would be the better value (excluding occluded surfaces).

That's how it is done today, an Atlas is twice the width and height of a Commando, with is 4x the surface area and 4x the tonnage. This means you like the current scaling?

[Wildstreak]

I am still amazed volumetric scaling was ever applied given the below:

Tarl Cabot, on 04 March 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:

MWO 300 engine rating
XL- 9.5(engine) + 3 (cockpit) + 3 (gyro) = 15.5 tons
LFE - 14.5 + 3 + 3 - 20.5 tons
STD - 19.0 + 3 + 3 = 25 tons

If volumetric scaling is applied to engines, the XL should be the smallest yet it takes up so much room.

[Troa Barton]

It's pretty well established that the side torsos on an Atlas are made of paper.

[Mystere]

ZippySpeedMonkey, on 07 March 2018 - 02:28 PM, said:

it's a terrible idea.

When my 35t Panther is the same height as a 50 ton Hunchback, but towers over a 30t Arctic Cheehtah, or Commando then you know something is wrong.

What? That density is inversely proportional to volume?

[Khobai]

Troa Barton, on 07 March 2018 - 08:42 PM, said:

It's pretty well established that the side torsos on an Atlas are made of paper.

theyre also full of hot air

[Troa Barton]

Khobai, on 07 March 2018 - 08:54 PM, said:

theyre also full of hot air

[[ LEAKED IMAGE OF THE ATLAS II ]]

Spoiler

[Nightbird]

Wildstreak, on 07 March 2018 - 08:28 PM, said:

I am still amazed volumetric scaling was ever applied given the below:


If volumetric scaling is applied to engines, the XL should be the smallest yet it takes up so much room.

I tackled this question here.

Nightbird, on 05 March 2018 - 08:07 PM, said:

So I got a question. I've been thinking though the density question, and here's what I got.

Say we start with a standard structure and standard armor Commando and Atlas.

(1) 10% of the weight goes to structure, and 20% (approx) goes to armor. The structure and armor should be the same density, given how it's all swappable (in case of structure as scrap). At this point, we've used up 30% of the total weight and at the same density for both mechs.

(2) The remaining 70% of the tonnage goes into the 53 free slots. We know the slots are the same size, since if they scaled with tonnage a 3 slot DHS on a Commando would take up less than 1 slot on an Atlas, which is not the case. It doesn't matter which slots you fill and which slots you leave empty, you have 17.5 tons versus 70 tons going into the same sized 53 slots.

We don't know what % of the total volume the structure and armor take up, but we do know that for 30% of the total tonnage, the density is the same, and for the other 70%, the Atlas is much more dense (4x more). Right? Or can there be other 'empty space' in a mech that is not part of the slot system?

Even without knowing any density numbers, we know that heavier mechs are more dense than lighter mechs because of the slot system.

[LordNothing]

Nightbird, on 07 March 2018 - 06:20 PM, said:

That's how it is done today, an Atlas is twice the width and height of a Commando, with is 4x the surface area and 4x the tonnage. This means you like the current scaling?

im rather indifferent about the scaling actually. no matter what yardstick you use, someones going to find it inadequate.

[WarHippy]

All I got from this is that I want a tiny 25 ton Atlas. Everything else I will read after some sleep.

[Nightbird]

LordNothing, on 07 March 2018 - 09:45 PM, said:

im rather indifferent about the scaling actually. no matter what yardstick you use, someones going to find it inadequate.

That's certainly the logic to not do anything, ever, since perfection does not exist in this world.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

thats my first minds to Scaling 2013/14 ..left MWO Hunchback in MWO old Size before rescaling...bring the Mechs in the Size to the Old BT Canon with 9,62m for a Shadowhawk ..thats the lenght of a Abrams M1
Tank

is a Man in a Astronaut Suit larger by Volume as the same man naked or with a Knight plate Amor or with a Modern Soldier Uniform and Equipment ....the man in the Knight Amor now taller as in in the Astronautsuit and the soldier is bigger when her grab a Misslelaucher.

Proble nothing in MWO has a correct scaling ..when 2 Cataphracts stand face to face the Cockpit from the other fill not the own View and we can not (thinking) see the enemy pilot and the range in HUD say most 20m ????...the only correct Factors the Scleleton and the Cockpit with Pilot ...by the Rescaling in Locust now sitting a scaled Dwarf and in the Atlas a Elementar in the cockpit

and with smaller mechs ...the must make more and longer Steps for the same Range/Time for the Speed =really running Mechs ...not only double Step..and thats make big Problems with good looking animations (using of arms and Torso for hold Balance )

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 08 March 2018 - 09:02 AM.

[Nightbird]

There's lot of maps with a lack of objects from which you can get a feel for the size of the mechs. Even when there are objects, the incorrect sizing can be jarring. For example, take Crimson Straights, the semi trucks should be around the same size as a Locust, but the Locust is 20 times bigger.

[LordNothing]

Nightbird, on 08 March 2018 - 07:34 AM, said:

That's certainly the logic to not do anything, ever, since perfection does not exist in this world.

it does seem like pgi's job is to try to find reasons to not do anything. but the fact that they put any effort into rescaling at all is amazing. still plenty of room to nitpick the metrics they used. if it were me id have first scaled the mechs to look right, done a volumetric (or rather surface area) analysis, and then use the resulting value as a variable in balance metrics. that way you could have fixed problem mechs and saved a lot of work in the process. if a mech had a low profile for its tonnage/class then it would have its base stats nerfed, and vice versa. but the games got enough problems to nitpick something as low priority as scaling.

Edited by LordNothing, 08 March 2018 - 02:18 PM.

[Nightbird]

LordNothing, on 08 March 2018 - 02:16 PM, said:

it does seem like pgi's job is to try to find reasons to not do anything. but the fact that they put any effort into rescaling at all is amazing. still plenty of room to nitpick the metrics they used. if it were me id have first scaled the mechs to look right, done a volumetric (or rather surface area) analysis, and then use the resulting value as a variable in balance metrics. that way you could have fixed problem mechs and saved a lot of work in the process. if a mech had a low profile for its tonnage/class then it would have its base stats nerfed, and vice versa. but the games got enough problems to nitpick something as low priority as scaling.

If you sized the mechs by surface area, the current sizes is what you get.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

nd by sized with surface we must use each part extra ...each arm , each torsoside for his own ...not 2 D billboards ,who the most parts hidden from other parts .

Here a other old Sized Pic before Rescaling..next Leopard the old Catapult beside my scaling from the Cata ..all in relation to MWO (headlesss ) OPilot and Assets and a Cry Abrams Tank and Pickup


Lore size of the Leopard only
Length 66 meters Width 51.6 meters Height 22.4 meters
thats never the MWO size

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 09 March 2018 - 03:14 AM.

[Tiewolf]

q.e.d. Well done!

[adamts01]

Why I couldn't care less about volumetric scaling? It's bad for game play and balance. 90% of Mwo exists in Quick Play, where every weight class is treated as an equal, or at least should be. That's not the game I want, but that's the game we were given. One of PGI's greatest mistakes was throwing the same mechs in CW, where lighter mechs had less value. The volumetric scaling proposed would make the weakest class absolutely worthless. If we had a ticket-based mode, or some other sort of logistics, then fine, let lights be worthless. But in this current game that can't be the case. The light nerf/resale was a grave mistake.

[The6thMessenger]

I'd like smaller Atlases and stuff.

But i doubt that PGI would **** with the scales again, not after the last mishap as i heard it.