478 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

FupDup, on 04 March 2018 - 03:01 PM, said:

I don't think that's what he meant.

A specific example might be the proportion/ratio of your total mass that gets spent on internal structure. In BT every mech uses the same %, but as far as I've heard that's not realistic. Realistically the larger mechs would need a higher proportion of their body mass spent on internal frame than a small mech (cube square law, right?).

The idea that a 100-ton and 20-ton mech both spend exactly 5% of their weight on their skeleton is silly, either the 100-tonner should spend more than 5% or the 20-tonner should spend lower than 5%. The point is that the ratios for stuff like that would not be the same, it's not like upscaling a .png image file.

This is a great point! I didn't want to touch these issues in the OP because it's a little tedious, but with BT rules, the direction of the mech size gets more off from PGI's interpretation.

Take engines, all STD and XL engines are swappable, this implies that 1 slot is the same size. But heavier mechs obvious take heavier engines, so the weight per slot is higher. This applies to all other slots, more pod space with the same number of free slots=more weight per slot on average.

[Koniving]

FLG 01, on 04 March 2018 - 10:14 AM, said:

This is the only canonic size chart:


It's from the TRO:3039.

And this FASA made chart isn't canon?

What I find funny is we would actually have some semblance of balancing for issues like Endo Steel and Ferro...

Notice the most oversized mechs... happen to have both endo steel and ferro. The ones that seem undersized... lack endo...or both.

Edited by Koniving, 04 March 2018 - 03:25 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Just copied this from another post of mine. As for the smallest size, there is an absolute minimum. Is there anyone who can hit a UAV while moving 60kph every time? Is there anyone who actually believes that the mechs are sized appropriately for MWO, from assaults to lights? Locust, imho is right at the cusp of the absolute minimum for several reasons but moving up the sizes are more exaggerated.

Cockpits - All are 3 tons regardless of mech weight
Gyros - engine rating/100


BATTLETECH 300 engine rating: XL 9.5 tons (50% lighter than STD) / LFE 14.5 tons (looks like a 5 ton difference there!! and 25% heavier than XL) / STD 19.0 tons

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

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 04 March 2018 - 03:31 PM.

[FLG 01]

Koniving, on 04 March 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:

And this FASA made chart isn't canon?

Hm, iirc, you did that - not FASA. The TRO:3050 images this one is using are not meant to show scale or size relations.

Also, in case of conflict, new canon trumps old canon. And since TRO:3039 clearly states there is massive size difference between lights and assaults, that's canon now.

[thievingmagpi]

Dimento Graven, on 04 March 2018 - 02:34 PM, said:

Unfortunately, all deference to the OP's intent, he's making the assumption that these 'mechs are all the same density.

Also assumes that the quantity of materials required to make a 25 ton 'mech function scales directly with the amount necessary for a 100 ton 'mech.

I don't think 'volumetric scaling' applies...

This was my feeling. Materials have different strengths and stresses at different weights. I don't think it's fair to assume "proportionality"

[Escef]

Nightbird, on 04 March 2018 - 03:02 PM, said:

Spoiler

Interesting. I expected that the Commando's "backpack" would even things out some, but obviously it did not.

Koniving, on 04 March 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:

Notice the most oversized mechs... happen to have both endo steel and ferro. The ones that seem undersized... lack endo...or both.

This may have been on purpose, as endo steel has a foamed or honeycomb structure. Ferro armor might as well, don't recall off the top of my head.

FLG 01, on 04 March 2018 - 04:08 PM, said:

Hm, iirc, you did that - not FASA. The TRO:3050 images this one is using are not meant to show scale or size relations.

It's also important to keep in mind that art is considered low man on the totem pole when it comes to canon.

Edited by Escef, 04 March 2018 - 05:12 PM.

[Khobai]

thievingmagpi, on 04 March 2018 - 04:34 PM, said:

This was my feeling. Materials have different strengths and stresses at different weights. I don't think it's fair to assume "proportionality"

if we balanced based on real life that would make sense. but we dont.

the problem is making assaults disproportionately large makes it way too easy to hit specific locations.

which ends up defeating the purpose of assaults having more armor.

if youre in an assault like the direwolf, where everyone can constantly unload into your CT, you end up being less survivable than if youre in a heavy mech with less armor that can better distribute damage across all its torso and arm locations.

thats why the larger mechs need to be scaled properly. because if armor only increases linearly but scaling increases exponentially... the larger mechs get the more they get screwed.

although mediums have it far worse off than assaults right now in terms of scaling vs armor. i was just using the direwolf as an example.

Edited by Khobai, 04 March 2018 - 05:42 PM.

[thievingmagpi]

Khobai, on 04 March 2018 - 05:27 PM, said:

if we balanced based on real life that would make sense. but we dont.

the problem is making assaults disproportionately large makes it way too easy to hit specific locations.

which ends up defeating the purpose of assaults having more armor.

if youre in an assault like the direwolf, where everyone can constantly unload into your CT, you end up being less survivable than if youre in a heavy mech with less armor that can better distribute damage across all its torso and arm locations.

thats why the larger mechs need to be scaled properly. because if armor only increases linearly but scaling increases exponentially... the larger mechs get the more they get screwed.

although mediums have it far worse off than assaults right now in terms of scaling vs armor. i was just using the direwolf as an example.

Sure, I agree- but I think the argument stands on its own. I don't think trying to "logic" out the physics makes sense. Assaults are potentially a bit too large and it hurts gameplay. That should be the discussion.

[PocketYoda]

Nightbird, on 04 March 2018 - 12:46 PM, said:

For fun: 100 Ton Locust and 100 Ton Cheeta... your worst nightmares realized

Funny 100 ton locust is the same size as a Cicada...

[RaptorRage]

FLG 01, on 04 March 2018 - 04:08 PM, said:

Hm, iirc, you did that - not FASA. The TRO:3050 images this one is using are not meant to show scale or size relations.

Also, in case of conflict, new canon trumps old canon. And since TRO:3039 clearly states there is massive size difference between lights and assaults, that's canon now.

Actually I made that TRO 3050 Chart and the images for the front and side views come from two different books, the original TRO 3050 and the MechWarrior 2nd Edition Rulebook. They certainly are intended to be scale charts because the relative sizes of the Mechs between the two publications were identical. As for the sizes that was based at the time on the Armorcast 1:60 scale models for the Mad Cat and Vulture. If I were to update that one I'd go back further to the 1991 FASA blueprints as the size reference since those are also given a scale and could be used to get more accurate heights, but from my research into those blueprints you could probably just take the numbers in that chart and scale them down by about 86% to get the sizes based on the blueprints. I posted an updated version of that chart on the CBT fanart forum a few years back as well.

http://bg.battletech...p?topic=49347.0

[InspectorG]

Yeonne Greene, on 04 March 2018 - 10:27 AM, said:

In either case, greeble and effectively useless dead-space should be discounted. And they weren't, e.g. Blackjack has these big pockets to either side of the cockpit that have zero tactical impact (good or bad), but because they are open space the Blackjack got slightly larger.

Yeah. Also: Bug mechs trend towards bigger torso because of less arm. Banshee is tall and wide due to not being that deep. 'Cube mechs'(Dire) get boned in the defense dept. /etc.

There is compromise to keep Artistic intent, for sure. But, this isnt even close.

[Brody319]

Khobai, on 04 March 2018 - 12:19 AM, said:

would you like to buy a mini mech pack?

I would! I would buy a mini-mech pack. Mini-Direwolf, Mini-King Crab, Mini-Altas, etc. Would be awesome. Or better yet. Have mini-mode where the maps are just a single street but all the mechs are like 5 feet tall.

[Y E O N N E]

InspectorG, on 04 March 2018 - 08:09 PM, said:

Yeah. Also: Bug mechs trend towards bigger torso because of less arm. Banshee is tall and wide due to not being that deep. 'Cube mechs'(Dire) get boned in the defense dept. /etc.

And then there is the Nightstar, which is enormous for 95 tons and makes the Banshee look lithe.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 04 March 2018 - 08:43 PM.

[Nightbird]

Well, ideally each component would be sized volumetrically as well... not placed into the legs whenever one wishes.

[Dimento Graven]

I've always used this image for scaling... It's based off the original FASA 'mech blueprints, so I mean, OF COURSE it's accurate:

So what we can gather is, considering that the Marauder is shown to be 9 "Dudes" tall, we can surmise the Marauder is supposed to be 54' 9" tall.

Easy...

EDIT: Oh and by going from this set of blueprints, you could see FASA's original intent when it comes to scaling:

Note the Locust is almost as 'tall' as the Marauder, however, MUCH 'skinnier' in all other respects, while it appears that the wasp, another very light 'mech was much shorter than the Locust, and interestingly enough, the Marauder is depicted as being shorter than the Locust as well...

I find this scaling much more interesting than what MWO has, but the whine-tards being what they are got us here...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 05 March 2018 - 08:14 AM.

[evilauthor]

I've gotten the impression that Assaults are waaaay bigger than they should be in canon, especially after piloting a few lights myself. Lights IMO are about right for canon size and the other mechs should be scaled down to match them better,

What? That makes Mediums, Heavies, and especially Assaults harder to hit? That has nothing to do with it! Really!

Of course, if PGI were going to go with "realistic" mech sizes, they'd probably also go with the TT canon 30 heat point scale to force chain firing and some kind of imperfect convergence system to create the illusion of random shot locations.

[Sennin]

Khobai, on 04 March 2018 - 03:31 AM, said:

they should release a new set of heroes for solaris

mini-atlas
assault-commando
earless-catapult
actuallythesizeofamedium-shadowhawk
anorexic-awesome
actuallyhashitboxesthatcanbehit-assassin
superheavy-locust
midget-annihilator



take my money PGI

We have the heavy Locust, it's called the Sun Spider.

Joking aside, I find this topic very informative and I like the idea of using the Commando as a basis for scaling in the game. It would appear assaults, heavies, and medium's would need to get somewhat smaller. How much that is, I don't know, I'm terrible at math and I don't do graphical design work. With the information provided here, it would seem sensible to start by shrinking each weight class, beginning with assaults and excluding lights below 35 tons, by about 15, 10, and 5 tons respectively, to see where that lines up. I feel some of the 35 ton lights could use a small reduction in size, like the Jenner and Firestarter, as they suffered greatly from their up-scaling.

[CygnusX7]

Forget the mech, just scale down the maps. Feel like I'm a person walking around with my eyes 5'8" (1.75 meters) above the ground.

Edited by CygnusX7, 05 March 2018 - 11:03 AM.

[Thorqemada]

Afair PGI did not take volumetric scale in mind when modelling mechs - Mech size was pretty much a guess size.
When the complaining about Mech sizing became to big they ignored it as long as they could and finally did a PGI.
The mesured each Mech and used some volumetric scaling formula idea from the forums and found that some Mechs would exceed others in their relative weight class and between the weight classes would be no sensible size difference.
They found out that they could change (enlarge/shrink) existing Mechs about 10% without having to much effort (no remodelling/hitbox rebuilding/no new animation etc.) and so they did.
This brought the biggest outliers somewhat in line but is not a scientific scaling method for Mechs since that all Mechs are modelled after.

And Mech Volume is the wrong measurement anyway bcs volumne is not normalized between different Mechs, some Mechs have little volume and some have much volume - it depends all on the Mech design.

A Barndoor has a volume next to nothing and is still the synonymous for an easy target!

There would be ways to handle different Mech sizes - pretty much the bigger and more disadvantageous a Mech is the easier it is to deplete is armor but the harder it is to deplet its internals.
A small Mech size equals a high internal densitiy of Equipment thus high damage per hit.
A big Mech size equals a low internal densitiy of Equipment this low damage per hit.

This would give Mechs of different sizes a distinct damage absorbing charactersitic that in the end should be relatively equal in TTK but very different in gameplay!

[Nightbird]

I don't believe PGI ever said that they scaled by volume of any sort, this PSA is more or less targeted at people on the forums that are under the impression PGI did. This is not the first thread to try to debunk this impression