478 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Nightbird, on 02 March 2019 - 12:23 AM, said:

You may disagree with some of the scaling that exists today, but it is someone else's opinion (at PGI) that they should be that size.

I can/have to live with that.
Well I need an example of the great closed beta.

You had the Awesome and the Atlas as assaults - there you had the Awesome (when ever you shoot at a barn you hit the Awesome) that had huge hitboxes (head and ct) but was on the other hand a great in fighter- equipped with the biggest engine the Awesome could out-fight every other Mech in 1on1.

Same with the huge catapult- the price for the deadliest Mech were huge hitboxes and an impossible to miss cockpit. All abilities were well developed and created an overall good picture.

Only the "massproduction" of mechs made it necessary to look at the hitboxes and it was the cheapest to simple scale the whole model.

[VulcanXIV]

It's when you hear all this caveats and compromises that you begin to get frustrated at PGI's hush hushness on these matters. I mean, they were obviously decided upon for a reason and a lot of people say it completely takes away from balance AND fun, not even counting immersion of the brand which also suffered.

Why do they refuse to be transparent on their decisions? Just how much are they intentionally gimping towards unhealthy short-term rather than goodwill community commitment?

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Nightbird, on 28 February 2019 - 09:31 PM, said:

I didn't want to do a car because those are 2 tons and have a lot of empty interior space for people and cargo. It's also hard to picture 10 cars versus 1 mech.



Here is the flea versus a 18 wheeler on Solaris city. The head of an 18 wheeler is 15 Tons IRL, and has plenty of room for 2 in the cabin, so you can see the flea is a bit too large even for the weight.

in Lore the 18 Wheller have the Lenght of a Heavy mechs Height ...and without "real" constructed Standard Engines ,with Space and Mass ,Sceletons, and ammunition Rooms or Weapons with Rooms for Capacitators ..also elements thats must "physical" CAD build in the Mech etc and all its not to make a Really Mechgame with correct scaling , who each Mech has other Space in it ..which mass has the leviathan from the Bible ? or the Wh40k Emperor Titan ? a LZ129 Aisship is bigger as a Boing 747 ,which has more mass

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 02 March 2019 - 10:08 AM.

[Nightbird]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 02 March 2019 - 03:09 AM, said:

in Lore the 18 Wheller have the Lenght of a Heavy mechs Height ...and without constructed Standard Engines ,with Space and Mass ,Sceletons, and ammunition Rooms or Weapons with Romms for Capacitators etc and all its not to make a Really Mechgame with correct scaling , who each Mech hase other Space in it ..which mass has the leviathan from the Bible ? or the Wh40k Emperor Titan ? a LZ129 Aisship is bigger as a Boing 747 ,which has more mass

An 18 wheeler is 60-80 tons with fully loaded cargo, so that length height analogy is pretty much spot on. In the post you quoted, I pointed to the head of the tractor-trailer (or just the tractor part w/o cargo). Keep in mind military stuff is usually more dense than civilian stuff, since creature comforts is kept to a minimum as less interior space allows for thicker armor.

[Iron Heel]

Submitted for your examination.
I included photos with men to show scale.


An M1A Abrams Tank weighs +/- 60 tons..




A M113 APC weighs in at +/- 15 tons..

Draw your own conclusions, but IMO, I think we can conclude that in real world applications there's lot more to mass and overall size than just volumetric scaling.. bearing in mind that MWO isn't a "real world" application..

[VulcanXIV]

Iron Heel, on 02 March 2019 - 04:09 AM, said:

Submitted for your examination.
I included photos with men to show scale.


An M1A Abrams Tank weighs +/- 60 tons..




A M113 APC weighs in at +/- 15 tons..

Draw your own conclusions, but IMO, I think we can conclude that in real world applications there's lot more to mass and overall size than just volumetric scaling.. bearing in mind that MWO isn't a "real world" application..

Yes and i'm sure we're all secretly in agreement that PGI possibly is using this as an excuse to not care about prioritizing this issue.

However, just like in real life, tiny things come into question when it comes to intended role or overall effectiveness. A tank is supposed to be the prime assault vehicle and excels in protection and firepower. The infantry vehicle is merely supposed to be a...well, infantry vehicle.

Pair up that real life role-based design and the fact that this is a GAME and balance + fun takes priority?...you still end up with the idea that volumetric scale makes sense, if not at least for some very very specific mechs that desperately require it.

Phoenix hawk for example. It's on the BOTTOM END of medium tonnage and is mentioned in lore to excel in the field-command role as a leader to a lance of light mechs. It's also great for reconnaissance/scouting. All of these things call for it to be anything but the damn height and width of a heavy mech.

[Weeny Machine]

Khobai, on 28 February 2019 - 01:27 PM, said:

making lights bigger would be a nerf to lights, and they really dont need a nerf so logically to fix the scaling assaults need to be smaller at atlas for example should only be like 3 times bigger than a jenner. because the jenner is 35 tons and the atlas is 100 tons. Certainly at MOST the atlas should be 4 times bigger than a jenner. Instead of being like 6 times the size of a Jenner like it is now... it needs a 25%-33% volume reduction.

Why? A majority of matches already consist of 4-6 assaults and nearly the same number of heavies rounded up by 1 light and 2 meds per team.

I am sure we can get the last 3 non-heavy/assaults off the field, too.

With less sarcasm: armour and firepower already prove superior over agility. Size is the only saving grace of a couple of lights. 35t mechs are already screwed because of their size and you are usually better off playing fast mediums

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Problem with more realistic looking smaller Mechs ...for full speed not longer trippeling double Steps , the mechs must really run !!! with Arm/Hip movement to Balancing the Mechs ...and Animations and PGI is not a Good Couple...seeing the mW4 Animations and the bad MWO animations (Urbi/Direwolf ...only a handfull with good Animations)

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 02 March 2019 - 10:11 AM.

[Nightbird]

Iron Heel, on 02 March 2019 - 04:09 AM, said:

Submitted for your examination.
I included photos with men to show scale.


An M1A Abrams Tank weighs +/- 60 tons..




A M113 APC weighs in at +/- 15 tons..

Draw your own conclusions, but IMO, I think we can conclude that in real world applications there's lot more to mass and overall size than just volumetric scaling.. bearing in mind that MWO isn't a "real world" application..

Well, 1, the tank has 50% more volume, and 2, the APC carries 6 soldiers and 3 crew, so lots of empty interior space.

[Nightbird]

edit to first post:

did my match wrong, sighz, retracted

Edited by Nightbird, 22 January 2020 - 11:53 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Supposedly mechs have a lot of empty space and 'blast channels', intentional gaps designed to redirect explosions and such that get through some of the armor back out of the mech, etc.

However.... yeah. Even accounting for space age super light materials mechs should be many times as heavy as they are while still being closer in size than they are. Now the bigger issue is that a 800 ton Atlas is putting pressure on a foot that's still to human scale, which results in it crushing itself AND whatever you're standing on. So you start needing mechs to have AT-AT feet.

So instead we have handwavium magic tech for our pretendy stompy robbit fun time. Which is why we need mech scaling based far more on playability than realism.

[Nightbird]

MischiefSC, on 22 January 2020 - 09:40 AM, said:

Which is why we need mech scaling based far more on playability than realism.

Can you expand more on this part? Some reasoning and/or evidence that our current scaling is better for playability

[MischiefSC]

Nightbird, on 22 January 2020 - 09:47 AM, said:

Can you expand more on this part? Some reasoning and/or evidence that our current scaling is better for playability

I'm saying we do NOT have that. Scaling needs to be geared more toward a balance factor for a mech. For example the Jenner and its **** hitboxes needs to be smaller (and more nimble) to compensate. Most mediums, in general, need to be smaller. Mechs like the Atlas that have bad hitboxes either need a mobility buff (at least let it twist like a boss) or even MOAR armor tweaks to offset it having such a large profile.

I'm saying scaling doesn't have any realistic basis to begin with any more than why a LPL needs to be X damage does. It should be used exclusively as a balancing tool.

[Nightbird]

Dimento Graven, on 22 January 2020 - 11:43 AM, said:

removed post

The current size is based on <"armor per square meter" of 'mech> since 2^2 is 4, so the ratio between the atlas and commando is right per your request.

Take whatever you want to do to Russ and do it to yourself

[Dimento Graven]

Nightbird, on 22 January 2020 - 11:49 AM, said:

The current size is based on <"armor per square meter" of 'mech> since 2^2 is 4, so the ratio between the atlas and commando is right per your request.

Take whatever you want to do to Russ and do it to yourself

When you were playing you were primarily a light pilot and obviously loved the incomplete implementation as is, as it provided you with an unearned advantage.

So I can see why you'd believe the current ratio is just fine.

It is not.

Not when one class of 'mech enjoys 'virtual armor' as provided by the current incomplete, incorrect game 'mechanics.

No other 'mech class can run into a full group of 12 'mechs, run around being blasted at, and more often than not, come out at most 'lightly scathed'. Yet lights are doing that more often than not.

That's some broke *** ****, there.

[Nightbird]

Dimento Graven, on 22 January 2020 - 12:05 PM, said:

When you were playing you were primarily a light pilot and obviously loved the incomplete implementation as is, as it provided you with an unearned advantage.

So I can see why you'd believe the current ratio is just fine.

It is not.

Not when one class of 'mech enjoys 'virtual armor' as provided by the current incomplete, incorrect game 'mechanics.

No other 'mech class can run into a full group of 12 'mechs, run around being blasted at, and more often than not, come out at most 'lightly scathed'. Yet lights are doing that more often than not.

That's some broke *** ****, there.

I'm not the one that asked for the current sizes, you did. My first post says the current mech sizes are exaggerated because of being based on surface area instead of volume, but you're asking for surface area? Isn't that saying you're happy with how things are?

Edited by Nightbird, 22 January 2020 - 12:07 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Nightbird, on 22 January 2020 - 12:07 PM, said:

I'm not the one that asked for the current sizes, you did. My first post says the current mech sizes are exaggerated because of being based on surface area instead of volume, but you're asking for volume?

No it appeared some people were asking for volume based balancing rather than surface area balancing.

Some 'mechs have SO MUCH surface area that even though they may have 200 armor in that location, it's actually incredibly thin given that the particular location in question can be hit from nearly every direction, and due to that size is even if the target is torso twisting to the maximum capability of the 'mech, even the average pilot has little issue maintaining their aim on some portion of the location, maximizing the damage delivered.

Lights on the other hand are armor dense, PLUS, with the "damage over time" hit registration for lasers, small size of hit boxes, physics breaking movement profiles, imperfect hit registration in general, the 20 armor they have in the same location is effectively at least twice that of the assault.

The result of all the various decisions, nerfs, quirks, et al, is that lights are way to durable in this game, as evidenced by, more often than not, the last surviving 'mechs at the end of the match will almost invariably light 'mechs.

[Nightbird]

Dimento Graven, on 22 January 2020 - 12:16 PM, said:

No it appeared some people were asking for volume based balancing rather than surface area balancing.

Some 'mechs have SO MUCH surface area that even though they may have 200 armor in that location, it's actually incredibly thin given that the particular location in question can be hit from nearly every direction, and due to that size is even if the target is torso twisting to the maximum capability of the 'mech, even the average pilot has little issue maintaining their aim on some portion of the location, maximizing the damage delivered.

Lights on the other hand are armor dense, PLUS, with the "damage over time" hit registration for lasers, small size of hit boxes, physics breaking movement profiles, imperfect hit registration in general, the 20 armor they have in the same location is effectively at least twice that of the assault.

The result of all the various decisions, nerfs, quirks, et al, is that lights are way to durable in this game, as evidenced by, more often than not, the last surviving 'mechs at the end of the match will almost invariably light 'mechs.

Not talking about hit rig here or other mechs. Just take the first image in the OP, the commando is 1/4 the area of the Atlas. Per you, the size and hitboxs are right. If you want same armor per square meter what we have is what you want.

The third image shows how large the commando should be if the Atlas is the right size, per volumetric scaling.

The fourth image show how large the atlas should be if the commando is the right size, per volumetric scaling.

What we have now is equal armor per surface area, at least with all the humanoid mechs (I'm not comparing between humanoid and other shapes since that requires more work and wasn't the point of this thread)

[justcallme A S H]

Dimento...

Did you miss another dozen shots on light mechs and need to come post about it?

[Prototelis]

Stunlock is cancer.

Knockdown was removed because it causes desync and this is a server authoritative game.

lol at "unearned advantage" Maybe try not chainfiring AC2s at lights.