478 replies to this topic

[Grus]

Bombast, on 26 February 2019 - 09:46 AM, said:

I'm aware. That's why the isXL and cXL difference in BT isn't as bad as it is in MWO.

The big issue is if they put in a correct 3 crit system that would make mechs like the PIR and Misty mg boats even more lethal.

[Bombast]

Grus, on 26 February 2019 - 12:59 PM, said:

The big issue is if they put in a correct 3 crit system that would make mechs like the PIR and Misty mg boats even more lethal.

I'm not advocating for it in MWO. Like a lot of things, it hasn't (Or rather, wouldn't) survived the translation to FPS very well. Just recognizing the difference and how that affects the equipment and 'lore' stats.

Edited by Bombast, 26 February 2019 - 01:25 PM.

[Verilligo]

Bombast, on 26 February 2019 - 11:15 AM, said:

This is such a huge difference that I fail to see how anyone could say they were the same system.

The practical outcome is the same, that's all I mean. Obviously it's a huge change between them to have engine crits in one game and, effectively, to not have them in the other. But I have had games in Roguetech where I never made an engine crit the entire time.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Prototelis, on 25 February 2019 - 04:49 PM, said:

No one is going to play that in a video game. This is a video game.

I agree but we were discussing scale and someone mentioned they would never take a Locust scaled correctly on a real battlefield. I just pointed out that on a real battlefield, not every armored unit's job is to fight which is why I referred to the Locust as being designed as a Recon vehicle. I also wanted to point out that if we are looking at scale, the Bradley IFV is pretty close to the same size as a M1 Abrams yet the Bradley weighs in at 27.6 tons while a M1 Abrams is at 67.6 tons so we have a real life example of two Armored Combat Vehicles having the same size while having a 40 ton difference in weight. This is an example of having say and 30-ton Incubus being the same volume as the 70-ton grasshopper with the only different being the density of the armor being used. I guess my point is, a mech doesn't necessarily have to be bigger or smaller than another just because they have a different weight. Basically, you could technically have short, compact 100 ton mechs or big tall 20 ton mechs.

[Prototelis]

So what the **** is the point of all that salad?

[Tarl Cabot]

Grus, on 26 February 2019 - 12:59 PM, said:

The big issue is if they put in a correct 3 crit system that would make mechs like the PIR and Misty mg boats even more lethal.

That and the real issue is that PGI would not make it robust enough, then if they did they might as well as kept it simple by changing that lethal ST loss for isXL to cXL/LFE and adjusting those values.

Bombast, on 26 February 2019 - 01:25 PM, said:

I'm not advocating for it in MWO. Like a lot of things, it hasn't (Or rather, wouldn't) survived the translation to FPS very well. Just recognizing the difference and how that affects the equipment and 'lore' stats.

True. This is why PGI can add its own flavor with out it is currently dealing with cXL/LFE and transferring that to the isXL, especially since MWO wont see an actual, functional engine crit system (as noted - would not survive FPS translation) but also also add more flavor to each with different non-lethal value levels.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 26 February 2019 - 04:05 PM.

[Nightbird]

Even if we disregard engine tech, the inflated size issue of assault mechs means their components are too easily focused. If the largest assaults today were scaled to where heavies are today, and everything else downwards using uniform density volumetric scaling, we would see TTK go up and a drastic decrease in durability issues.

[Tarl Cabot]

Nightbird, on 26 February 2019 - 09:07 PM, said:

Even if we disregard engine tech, the inflated size issue of assault mechs means their components are too easily focused. If the largest assaults today were scaled to where heavies are today, and everything else downwards using uniform density volumetric scaling, we would see TTK go up and a drastic decrease in durability issues.

Agreed but be careful what one wishes for without min/max. There is also a absolute minimum size to consider with the locust, imho, sitting right on that line or slightly under it.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 27 February 2019 - 04:05 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Tarl Cabot, on 27 February 2019 - 04:04 AM, said:

Agreed but be careful what one wishes for without min/max. There is also a absolute minimum size to consider with the locust, imho, sitting right on that line or slightly under it.

shrinking the Banshee (torso weapons only -as prime example for the locusts invulnerability) some percentage would be enough to end this era

[Nightbird]

Tarl Cabot, on 27 February 2019 - 04:04 AM, said:

Agreed but be careful what one wishes for without min/max. There is also a absolute minimum size to consider with the locust, imho, sitting right on that line or slightly under it.

You can't really talk about size without making it relative to its environment. Take the locust which I'll compare to a tractor trailer which can be found on crimson straights. An IRL image is included, the MWO trailer's cab is a bit longer so let's approximate that to be 20 tons (don't include the trailer since that fits 40 tons).

You can sort of see that the volume is about the same between the two, which is more or less fine unless you consider the fact that the mech is military hardware which tends to be much more dense than civilian stuff (due to armor being dense and the structure being more tolerant of abuse and having far less interior space).

From these points, I would say the locust is the right size if not a little on the large side in MWO.



If you were to compare the cab+loaded trailer (60tons as in the RL image) against a 60 ton mech though, you'd see how hilariously large the scaling of heavier mechs are.

Admittedly, this comparison relies on the size of the object in the environment, so feel free to find an object that says the mechs are scaled too small or just right.

Edited by Nightbird, 27 February 2019 - 02:22 PM.

[Prototelis]

IMO, I'm pretty sure those trucks should be a lot bigger.

[Nightbird]

Prototelis, on 27 February 2019 - 11:25 AM, said:

IMO, I'm pretty sure those trucks should be a lot bigger.

Sure, may I ask which objects you're comparing the trucks against? I was comparing them against the light posts and the first floor height of the buildings and that's why I thought they're pretty good.

[Prototelis]

Aren't there some of those near that cargo ship on crimson?

Edit; some of those have cargo containers on them too, which don't seem to scale that well with the mechs either.

Edited by Prototelis, 27 February 2019 - 12:10 PM.

[Nightbird]

Prototelis, on 27 February 2019 - 12:09 PM, said:

Aren't there some of those near that cargo ship on crimson?

Edit; some of those have cargo containers on them too, which don't seem to scale that well with the mechs either.

IMO it's the mechs that don't scale lol, since the rest (street width, vehicle size, street light height, building height of each floor) are consistent with the real world.

[SFC174]

Nightbird, on 27 February 2019 - 09:13 AM, said:

You can't really talk about size without making it relative to its environment. Take the locust which I'll compare to a tractor trailer which can be found on crimson straights. An IRL image is included, the MWO trailer's cab is a bit longer so let's approximate that to be 20 tons (don't include the trailer since that fits 40 tons).

You can sort of see that the volume is about the same between the two, which is more or less fine unless you consider the fact that the mech is military hardware which tends to be much more dense than civilian stuff (due to armor being dense and the structure being more tolerant of abuse and having far less interior space).

From these points, I would say the locust is the right size if not a little on the large side in MWO.



If you were to compare the cab+trailer (60tons) against a 60 ton mech though, you'd see how hilariously large the scaling of heavier mechs are.

Admittedly, this comparison relies on the size of the object in the environment, so feel free to find an object that says the mechs are scaled too small or just right.

I'm a little late to the party, but just for reference, a modern flatbed trailer (48 ft bed length) has a tare weight of about 10k-15k lbs depending on what its made of and what its made _for_. Now that doesn't mean much since a 65 ton M1 Abrams will fit _on_ that trailer (well, a heavy lift version of said trailer), but accuracy is important.

Given that mechs use so many materials that are considered near magical by today's technological standards (myomer for example), and that we really don't know the density of the fusion powerplants, I can't even begin to say whether scaling is appropriate vs. real world items. But most mechs do feel too big to me.

[Nightbird]

SFC174, on 27 February 2019 - 01:56 PM, said:

I'm a little late to the party, but just for reference, a modern flatbed trailer (48 ft bed length) has a tare weight of about 10k-15k lbs depending on what its made of and what its made _for_. Now that doesn't mean much since a 65 ton M1 Abrams will fit _on_ that trailer (well, a heavy lift version of said trailer), but accuracy is important.

Fair point, I did mean a loaded trailer like in the image I included. Not an unladen flatbed trailer.

Edited previous post to be more clear.

[Shadowomega1]

SFC174, on 27 February 2019 - 01:56 PM, said:

I'm a little late to the party, but just for reference, a modern flatbed trailer (48 ft bed length) has a tare weight of about 10k-15k lbs depending on what its made of and what its made _for_. Now that doesn't mean much since a 65 ton M1 Abrams will fit _on_ that trailer (well, a heavy lift version of said trailer), but accuracy is important.

Given that mechs use so many materials that are considered near magical by today's technological standards (myomer for example), and that we really don't know the density of the fusion powerplants, I can't even begin to say whether scaling is appropriate vs. real world items. But most mechs do feel too big to me.

What is close to Myomer currently in late development and there has been a "Foam" armor in the works for over 30 years. As for fusion reactors we are nowhere close with reactors going between 2,000 tons to 23,000 tons.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

You can't really talk about size without making it relative to its environment. Take the locust which I'll compare to a tractor trailer which can be found on crimson straights. An IRL image is included, the MWO trailer's cab is a bit longer so let's approximate that to be 20 tons (don't include the trailer since that fits 40 tons).

There is relative to the environment then there is an absolute minimum for playability, dealing with actually hitting the target, much less a specific section of said target. Of course this is PGI, which leads to whether or not the environment itself can be used to compare what is scaled correctly?

Nevermind that PGI rescaling was conducted within each weight class and not across weight classes. The Locust is maybe a quarter the displacement of the Blackjack despite being almost half the weight. And that same Locust certainly does not have a quarter of the displacement of an Atlas but should it be though? Not necessarily for this type of environment but it certainly should be closer than what it is.

/shrugs. I do not expect PGI to put in the manhours for another "major" revision though

[InfinityBall]

Angel of Annihilation, on 26 February 2019 - 02:02 PM, said:

I agree but we were discussing scale and someone mentioned they would never take a Locust scaled correctly on a real battlefield. I just pointed out that on a real battlefield, not every armored unit's job is to fight which is why I referred to the Locust as being designed as a Recon vehicle. I also wanted to point out that if we are looking at scale, the Bradley IFV is pretty close to the same size as a M1 Abrams yet the Bradley weighs in at 27.6 tons while a M1 Abrams is at 67.6 tons so we have a real life example of two Armored Combat Vehicles having the same size while having a 40 ton difference in weight. This is an example of having say and 30-ton Incubus being the same volume as the 70-ton grasshopper with the only different being the density of the armor being used. I guess my point is, a mech doesn't necessarily have to be bigger or smaller than another just because they have a different weight. Basically, you could technically have short, compact 100 ton mechs or big tall 20 ton mechs.

The Abrams is 50% longer, doesn't have a big empty compartment for carrying troops, and has a much, much larger turret

[Karl Streiger]

InfinityBall, on 27 February 2019 - 09:12 PM, said:

The Abrams is 50% longer, doesn't have a big empty compartment for carrying troops, and has a much, much larger turret

and most of this size is armor - because modern composite armor needs lot of space (russian tanks don't have those bulks because the sides of their turrets are not adequate armored and they use an autoloader .

anyhow even without a any idea about density you could also apply the rule of thumb that heavyer mechs are lot more denser (more armor, and weapons but stuff like cockpit, electronics and for the most part the drive train and fusion engine will keep the size no matter if you are looking at a light or a heavy (a light mech an engine almost as powerful as a engine for the assault

A quick throw stuff into a GURPS vehicle - i end with a though Atlas at 95tons and 134m³ and at 57m³ and 20tons for an Flea
most volume for the Atlas is eaten by the ammunition.
The Atlas has a 8200kW Fusion Plant and Legs that need 8000kW, the Flea has a 4000kW Fusion Plant an the legs need 3800. Atlas is two-three times as armored as the Flea.

put into volume:

shot with "smaybe" correct volumes (Flea MWO Flea MW4, Atlas MWO, Atlas? found in the net)

MWO Atlas scaled with the same density as the flea (285m³ compared to 57m³)
ok i could drop the weapons, but this would make both mechs only slightly bigger

Edited by Karl Streiger, 28 February 2019 - 01:14 AM.