125 replies to this topic

[Zakie Chan]

Im all for making mediums the size of mediums.... Atlas is supposed to be huge... not a bit taller....

[Dr Killinger]

Joe3142, on 20 February 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

Is it just me, or does that atlas look like it has a different head? It looks similar to the founders atlas head but on a normal atlas.

Nice catch! I'd love to buy alternative body parts with MC.

[Mister Blastman]

Treb is way too tall.

[ChrisOrange]

centurion has been way too big for a long time as well. It should be smaller. Not talking BT canon cuz I don't care. Just saying that it seems way too big and could be a great medium mech if it were smaller.

[soapyfrog]

I have a friend who is 6'2" inches and weighs 150 lbs soaking wet. I have another friend who is 5'10" and weighs about 240 lbs.

Get it?

[Reani Che]

And what about side view?

[Voidsinger]

Can we stop thinking height for mechs.

In size comparisons, it is VOLUME that matters. A thicker forward-rear dimension can account for height and width differences.

For game purposes, what matters is that the targettable area is consistent with the tonnage. While there may be slight variations due to density,mechs of the same tonnage should have the approximately the same amount of surface area targettable when all angles are considered.

[Sifright]

Voidsinger, on 20 February 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

Can we stop thinking height for mechs.

In size comparisons, it is VOLUME that matters. A thicker forward-rear dimension can account for height and width differences.

For game purposes, what matters is that the targettable area is consistent with the tonnage. While there may be slight variations due to density,mechs of the same tonnage should have the approximately the same amount of surface area targettable when all angles are considered.

Front profile is the most important thing about any mech.

If you are tall and wide you are dead against a good pilot because whilst you are shooting him he has no difficulties targeting your side torso.

doesn't matter if you are depth is only 1 cm when you have that big a silhouette

Edited by Sifright, 20 February 2013 - 11:23 PM.

[ZnSeventeen]

Yes, as has been stated to an extent, the game models are three dimensional.
There is height, width and depth. Together, they give volume. Multiply volume by density and you get mass, which when multiplied by gravity gives you weight.

Yay!

[armyof1]

soapyfrog, on 20 February 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

I have a friend who is 6'2" inches and weighs 150 lbs soaking wet. I have another friend who is 5'10" and weighs about 240 lbs.

Get it?

The important question is, have you tried shooting at them with lasers?

[Suprentus]

I don't understand. These two people are exactly the same size, so why is one heavier than the other? PGI really needs to fix this. My mind is blown.

[Reani Che]

Sifright, on 20 February 2013 - 11:20 PM, said:

Front profile is the most important thing about any mech.

If you are tall and wide you are dead against a good pilot because whilst you are shooting him he has no difficulties targeting your side torso.

doesn't matter if you are depth is only 1 cm when you have that big a silhouette

Only if you move straight to your enemy. Or your mech is not able to turn under fire:)
On the other side, tall mech's are able to see more at the battlefield, and that is really important for LRM mech's.

Edited by Reani Che, 21 February 2013 - 12:12 AM.

[Ralgas]

Sifright, on 20 February 2013 - 11:20 PM, said:

Front profile is the most important thing about any mech.

If you are tall and wide you are dead against a good pilot because whilst you are shooting him he has no difficulties targeting your side torso.

doesn't matter if you are depth is only 1 cm when you have that big a silhouette

If all you showing enemy's is your front profile without cover you need to be rethinking tactics, not mech size. Plenty of peeps argue dragons are unfairly done by due to not having enough side torso area and so don't get the "splash over" advantage of their side torso protection afforded other mechs and their side profile is a disadvantage. chassis quirks are chassis quirks

[Megacromulent]

Ralgas, on 21 February 2013 - 12:21 AM, said:

Plenty of peeps argue dragons are unfairly done by due to not having enough side torso area and so don't get the "splash over" advantage of their side torso protection afforded other mechs and their side profile is a disadvantage. chassis quirks are chassis quirks

And I wont run a dragon cause they are obscenely center torso target heavy.... get cored all the time compared to other mechs of the same weight. But many other things have been altered for the sake of "fun" and "balance", yet the only times people argue those is when it's in their favor, not when it actually makes sense. Here, it makes sense for smaller lighter mechs, to actually be smaller...

[Adridos]

Megachromulent, on 21 February 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

And I wont run a dragon cause they are obscenely center torso target heavy....

Well, we at least have XL engines that don't kill us right away.

Every mech has to have a weakness. Or we could just all go watch AI duke it out and see who's mech is superior...

Also, about Treb's size:


Definitely not as tall as an Atlas.

[Khobai]

Quote

Those comparing the Dragon and Centurion height for instance forget that the dragon has a much longer torso

I disagree. The Dragon's longer torso is largely irrelevant when it's being sniped. The depth of a mech tends not to matter as much as its width or height because they're almost always facing you head-on when you snipe them. That's why the Stalker's lack of width is a problem despite the Stalker having a lot of depth. Because when a Stalker faces you head-on its profile is small for an assault mech. Mechs that are too wide or tall for their weight class are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to getting sniped.

Width = makes you easier to hit from the front/back
Height= makes you easier to hit from the front/back and from the side
Depth = makes you easier to hit from the side

So we can we can see height is clearly the WORST of the three. That's why Trebuchets are so noticeably easy to hit.

Edited by Khobai, 21 February 2013 - 02:07 AM.

[Steinar Bergstol]

Megachromulent, on 21 February 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

And I wont run a dragon cause they are obscenely center torso target heavy.... get cored all the time compared to other mechs of the same weight. But many other things have been altered for the sake of "fun" and "balance", yet the only times people argue those is when it's in their favor, not when it actually makes sense. Here, it makes sense for smaller lighter mechs, to actually be smaller...

I like Dragons, and part of why I like them is the profile. Yes, the CT is big and vulnerable, but you'll be hard pressed to find a mech of that size better suited to running an XL engine thanks to the side torsos being so small that the threat of side torso coring is no longer an issue most of the time. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, yes, there are disadvantages to various chassis, but in some cases those disadvantages can be turned into advantages of a sort if you look at them from the right angle.

Edited by Steinar Bergstol, 21 February 2013 - 02:04 AM.

[Onmyoudo]

After playing my Trebuchet and measuring it against other mechs in game (taller than Cataphracts, inches shorter than a Stalker and a little taller than Awesomes give or take cockpit heights) I believe that all mech sizes should be recalibrated slightly (taller assaults, slightly smaller lights) in order to exaggerate and emphasise the differences in class for the sake of flavour as much as anything else. I find it a little disconcerting that except for the lights and the Atlas, every other mech appears to be basically the same size.

[Sifright]

Any one saying huge height and width isn't a massive handicap is a fool.

If you are attacking some one you have to be facing them given the fact that it has most of it's high dps weapons on its torso.

Ergo every one blithering and blathering about how you can just torso twist and not have that problem is being dumb.

All the enemy has to do is wait for you to expose your ST and they pick it off with ease given the size and lack of armour it's mega easy to instantly kill a treb with a single volley.

[Ralgas]

Khobai, on 21 February 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

I disagree. The Dragon's longer torso is largely irrelevant when it's being sniped. The depth of a mech tends not to matter as much as its width or height because they're almost always facing you head-on when you snipe them. That's why the Stalker's lack of width is a problem despite the Stalker having a lot of depth. Because when a Stalker faces you head-on its profile is small for an assault mech. Mechs that are too wide or tall for their weight class are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to getting sniped.

Width = makes you easier to hit from the front/back
Height= makes you easier to hit from the front/back and from the side
Depth = makes you easier to hit from the side

So we can we can see height is clearly the WORST of the three. That's why Trebuchets are so noticeably easy to hit.

Because you always get a front profile shot when sniping right? More often than not i'm seeing a 45% angle or worse unless i'm counter sniping targeted already, or making silly lrm boats duck.

Ok treb has height(and only a fraction more than a cent at that), but it also has the potential speed of a cicada, so unless you're brawling with it (which it wasn't designed for ) it just takes some tactics, smart piloting and some bigger maps. l can see it becoming rather successful as a tag/ppc/lrm equipped light hunter for alpine, and have seen it in it's fire support role already putting the multi-tube launchers on several variants to good use