55 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

MWO does not have any volumetric scaling of any size, shape, or form.
https://mwomercs.com...metric-scaling/

[Dogstar]

Nightbird, on 10 April 2018 - 06:57 AM, said:

MWO does not have any volumetric scaling of any size, shape, or form.
https://mwomercs.com...metric-scaling/

This is definitely deserved this time.

[Adridos]

Nightbird, on 10 April 2018 - 06:57 AM, said:

MWO does not have any volumetric scaling of any size, shape, or form.

If you say so, chief.

[Nightbird]

The link has the explanation, if you don't agree feel free to say why.

[Mark Nicholson]

Nightbird, on 10 April 2018 - 06:57 AM, said:

MWO does not have any volumetric scaling of any size, shape, or form. https://mwomercs.com...metric-scaling/

Mechs have their volume measured and are then scaled to be consistent with other mechs the same tonnage. A tall lanky Assassin and a brick-shaped Cicada are very different shapes, and this process removes the ambiguity regarding how large a mech should be compared to it's peers.

[Karl Streiger]

Mark Nicholson, on 10 April 2018 - 08:26 AM, said:

Mechs have their volume measured and are then scaled to be consistent with other mechs the same tonnage. A tall lanky Assassin and a brick-shaped Cicada are very different shapes, and this process removes the ambiguity regarding how large a mech should be compared to it's peers.

While this make some sense from a logical pov, it is not a very good idea for a ego shooter. Area and angle are important
Just for example the Flashman would be a superb Mech. Ugly but lots of round shapes = store much volume.

[Nightbird]

Mark Nicholson, on 10 April 2018 - 08:26 AM, said:

Mechs have their volume measured and are then scaled to be consistent with other mechs the same tonnage. A tall lanky Assassin and a brick-shaped Cicada are very different shapes, and this process removes the ambiguity regarding how large a mech should be compared to it's peers.

Thanks for explaining Mark, I stand corrected. MWO scales by volume within the same tonnage mechs, but not across different tonnage mechs. (Doesn't mean I agree with penalizing mechs with small legs or arms with huge torsos, or that mechs aren't scaled between different tonnages as well!)

Edited by Nightbird, 10 April 2018 - 08:45 AM.

[Dogstar]

Nightbird, on 10 April 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

but not across different tonnage mechs.

You're very selectively choosing how to interpret his answer in order to fit with your narrative, why not treat it with good faith and assume that most mechs are consistently scaled with the same factor across the tonnages.

and no your thread on volumetric scaling isn't very good which is what prompted my to make that meme image above.

[Nightbird]

I am curious as to how the volume was decided between tonnages. Mark, is this something you can share?

[Metus regem]

Mark Nicholson, on 10 April 2018 - 08:26 AM, said:

Mechs have their volume measured and are then scaled to be consistent with other mechs the same tonnage. A tall lanky Assassin and a brick-shaped Cicada are very different shapes, and this process removes the ambiguity regarding how large a mech should be compared to it's peers.

Okay, that sounds reasonable, but what is the weight of said item you are assigning to the volume?

I ask as 100 pounds of feathers takes up more space than 100 pounds of iron which in turns takes up more space than 100 pounds of depleted uranium....

[Mark Nicholson]

Nightbird, on 10 April 2018 - 08:54 AM, said:

I am curious as to how the volume was decided between tonnages. Mark, is this something you can share?

I wasn't part of that process, so I can't speak about it with any authority.
However going forward each tonnage should have a series of mechs that are clearly larger than the bracket below, and smaller than the bracket above, while having data to support.

[Nightbird]

Thanks Mark!

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Adridos, on 10 April 2018 - 06:02 AM, said:

MWo does not have pure volumetric scaling. They also take the weapons into account. The weapons have consistent sizes, it's the rest of the mech which gets volumetrically scaled. Take awesome, remove PPCs (which weigh 21 tons in total) and you have the basis which then gets scaled up to the 59 tons.

Anyway, if they're going to allow you to enter the actual cockpit of the mech, then they will have to drastically scale up a lot of mechs, especially the lights which (following BT standard) could never fit an adult person inside unless we assumed all IS pilots had a prerequisite of being born with dwarfism.

problem ..the Mechs have no Weapons ...only Barrels thats puts on the Chassies like each other parts ...one Artist make the Parts longer a Other smaller ...all not really parts and we seeing important Differents in the Concept Arts from Alex and the Models...We can make Mechs tall like Imperator WH40k Titans or make it like Heavy Gears smaller ...nothing has to do with Logic or Really Mathematic...its all only the View of the Artist..its like wich its the right Scaling of Pokemon Monsters by same Density ?or what the Correct Scaling of weapons per Weight for FinalFantasy Characters?

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 11 April 2018 - 02:25 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

of course there are people that are insane in trying to put a "might be working" AC plus Lasers and ammunition in an Arm of the Dire Wolf..... when you consider that 20% of the weight of a DireWolf Prime is located in each arm (so less then 60% for the rest of the torso)
also the volume of a 300engine is the same - so the space consumed by Cicades engine must be bigger compared to the Atlas.
Same for the Gyro.
Strictly spoken a Stormcrow must be bigger or at least similar in size compared to a old Stalker

So this means - when you want to do it correct - you need to "lock" engines, heatsinks, armor and structure - this means light weight components allow you to have more stuff - but you are a bigger than average target

[razenWing]

I like how my topic is re-"hotted," but I literally didn't ask for discussion on volumetric scaling in MWO, which has been done to death and pretty much been said the final word by the other thread that I referred to.

This thread is about MW5 and how in the released footage seem to fall more in line with the method of scaling discussed prior. Which is pretty darn awesome.

But anyways, thanks for playing!

[Athom83]

I think what it is was PGI actually modeling Endo/Ferro ballooning out a mech like it's supposed to.

[Nightbird]

razenWing, on 11 April 2018 - 04:29 AM, said:

This thread is about MW5 and how in the released footage seem to fall more in line with the method of scaling discussed prior.

Here you go

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6054506

[Mawai]

MWO volumetric scaling for mechs is generally not bad. As was mentioned they use the dimensions of the models and assume a constant density (reasonable assumption) to determine the overall size scaling.

However, this does result in balance concerns and different optimal playstyles with different mech designs.

With volumetric scaling ... a 100 ton mech of size 10m tall x 3m wide x 3m (90m3) deep would scale to a 20 ton mech that would be about 5.85m tall x 1.755m wide x 1.755m deep (18m3). Looking at each dimension, the 20 ton mech is STILL greater than 50% of the size of the 100 ton mech in each dimension ... however, its volume is 1/5 of the 100 ton mech.

THIS is exactly correct volumetric scaling. The result is that the size difference between a 55ton and 100ton is relatively small and an 85 ton and 100ton is probably almost negligible.

In Battletech this is NOT an issue because the chance to hit a mech did not depend on the actual size of the mech. Mech dimensions in battletech are fluff. Lighter mechs were usually harder to hit because they moved faster.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/CBT_Tables

HOWEVER, MWO is a multiplayer first person shooter. Hitting a target is dependent on player skill and the SIZE of the target. Larger targets are easier to hit. Mech defenses are proportional to mech size and scale linearly. A 20 ton mech has 1/5 the defenses of a 100ton mech but when aiming in MWO it is somewhere between 1/2 and 1/4 the size of the 100 ton mech since you only see ONE cross section of the mech when firing. The volume of the mech has no effect on ease to hit ... only the cross sectional area of the target in the 2D plane viewed from the firer perspective.

This might be fine IF speed was able to compensate for the ease of being able to hit these targets but in general it doesn't. Since, MWO is a real time game, the player can always choose the best time to shoot .. when the target is moving the least or has exposed a vulnerability. MWO also allows for focused fire on damaged components.

This means that all mech designs are not equal. Mechs with a wide frontal facing, like the Awesome, are very vulnerable when firing since they are an easy target to hit compared to their tonnage while narrow longer mechs are much less vulnerable and harder to hit when firing. This changes the playstyle, balance and tactics even for mechs with identical tonnage and loadouts. Some mechs are just at a disadvantage due to their geometry in MWO.

Finally, in MW5, just like in Battletech, none of this really matters very much because MW5 is PVE and the mech scaling differences aren't a significant factor in balance (since opponents are AI controlled and encounters can be balanced by either cheating with the AI or adding a mech or two).

Mech scaling only really matters in a multiplayer PVP setting like MWO where it becomes a factor in overall balance.

[Nightbird]

In MW5 scaling doesn't affect gameplay, but they did volumetric scaling correctly.

In MWO, the Atlas has half the density as the Commando, 8 times the volume. I'll leave the effects on gameplay alone here.

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 11 April 2018 - 03:41 AM, said:

of course there are people that are insane in trying to put a "might be working" AC plus Lasers and ammunition in an Arm of the Dire Wolf..... when you consider that 20% of the weight of a DireWolf Prime is located in each arm (so less then 60% for the rest of the torso)
also the volume of a 300engine is the same - so the space consumed by Cicades engine must be bigger compared to the Atlas.
Same for the Gyro.
Strictly spoken a Stormcrow must be bigger or at least similar in size compared to a old Stalker

So this means - when you want to do it correct - you need to "lock" engines, heatsinks, armor and structure - this means light weight components allow you to have more stuff - but you are a bigger than average target

If we use the Bushwacker as an example, it uses a Hermes 275xl engine, it is the only mech in lore to use that engine, this is likely due to the shape of the mech, requiring a specific engine configuration... now as far as mech customization and mech building goes (MWO included), a 275xl is a 275xl... only matters if it is Clan or IS for tech base concerns.

Now be extension and logical thinking, one could not pull that Hermes 275xl and replace it easily with a Vox 330XL to make it run faster, dispite what TT rules and MWO rules say you can... It's why I wish we didn't have the ability to swap engines and chassis types so easily, it really is counter intuitive with how these mechs would be designed, they wouldn't be cavernious things, Orion not withstanding as it is called out as such in the lore, I would expect mechs to looks somewhat like the below image once you pull off the armour plates:

Spoiler

Go a head, look it over, then try and tell me how you could possibly make larger engines or weapons fit inside the same space, I'll wait.

Edit:

Karl, this isn't directed at you, more that I'm directing this to the people that think it would be easy to swap different equipment into a military vehicle...

Edited by Metus regem, 11 April 2018 - 07:49 AM.