268 replies to this topic

[Alienized]

joelmuzz, on 15 March 2015 - 01:41 PM, said:

Pointless, PGI don't make mistakes...however it comes out will be declared as working as intended.
Hopefully it is good, it had potential up until these size issues were raised, hopefully just speculative overreaction.
If there is a size problem then best it will get is more quirks.

it always is an over-reaction. each time a patch comes up or new mechs arrive everythins has been made worse than it was.
the problem with viridian bog? people only see the central hills and nothing else.
mech size matters the last in this game.
uh the GHR is tall... he gets spotted first.... then put a narc on its head-missile mount and make it count. you can see the enemy faster too so whats the problem? put a beagle on it + advanced sensor module and its works fine as spotter because of its size.

Ultimatum X, on 15 March 2015 - 12:25 PM, said:

No dude, I'm looking for a few IS heavy mechs that can actually keep pace with my collection of superior clan mechs.


Because I like variety.

play the quickdraws. they can do things a timbergod cant.
and so will the GHR be able to.
just dont play them like a timber.

[Paigan]

They really should do a major scaling overhaul.
Adjusting a 3D scale is a single float value (if done properly), shouldn't take mentionable time.

Stalker vs. Catapult, Vulture vs. Timberwolf, Centurion and many more are way out of concistent scale

[XX Sulla XX]

Quote

What? If it's bigger than other mechs, it'll be targeted faster. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Ok let me break down your statement below and how it does not relate to what I said.

Quote

Not necessarily. Psychologically speaking, you're going to be much more inclined to focus fire the bigger, target, even if it is say, flatter. Be it as a subconscious method of threat evaluation, or noticing an easier target, the Grasshopper will be big to boot and focused for its height above others as well.

I said comparing height does not tell you if it is scaled corrected. I said for that you need to look at the internal volumes of both models. But then you start talking about how flat it is. This is not a aspect of volume or at least an incomplete one it comes down to how the model was redesigned. But your first post talks about scale not design.

Now assuming you mean scale in the standard 3D program way "Uniform Scale .... lets you scale objects by the same amount along all three axes, maintaining the object's original proportions.". Then the scale you were talking about is directly related to volume and density but not design.

If you have a problem with design and not scale then you should have said that instead.

Now lets look at height and width. If you compare the Grasshopper to a shadowhawk it looks very very much like a scaled up Shadowhawk. A mech with good hit boxes and that is hard to hit because it is so thin and tall. A mech that still rates as one of the best IS mediums. If anything proportion wise the Grasshopper has more leg and less torso scale for its size than the Shadowhawk. The width of the torso is also not more than you would expect from scaling up the same basic shape by 15 tons.

So the Grasshopper can be a very good mech If they have done a good job on the hit boxes. And judging by the quirks where two out of three get a center torso buff it suggests they have done a good job on hit boxes. But the trush is we just do not know yet.

Now lets look at your petition. You are saying lets delay the release of the Grasshopper until its "scaling" is fixed. But this is not based on enough information for such a drastic step. You do not even really know if it scaled correctly for a 70 ton mech in relation to volume. And an argument it is to tall and to wide is a matter of personal opinion not fact.

Not only that you do not know how viable it is going to be. You do not know how good the hit boxes are. And no one is 100% sure yet if the quirks are good enough in relation to the hit boxes.

So no they should not delay the release of the Grasshopper and change it to what you think is correct. Does that mean it is perfect probably not. Might it use more quirks or a change to hit boxs in the future maybe. But just like you I have no idea yet.

That being said I would be interested in some one checking the internal volume of each mech and seeing how it fits with reported tonnage. But just looking at the front view is so lacking as to be almost worthless.

Edited by XX Sulla XX, 15 March 2015 - 02:28 PM.

[Redhook]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 March 2015 - 06:22 AM, said:

The Grasshopper has always been tall and the Zeus was... Robust not big.

The Mech is perfect. Use the terrain to your adantage. Its a one of a kind.....So find areas on the map that can exploit its unique weapon hard point and stop whining. Alex scales and he has done a great job. I trust his jugement thus far. There is a reason he made it this way. Its our job to find out why. The guys whining are those one trick pony players that just charge in to all situations without intel or situational awareness wanting to fight at 90 meters and then complain about hitboxes. Great job Alex. Keep up the great work!

[Redhook]

XX Sulla XX, on 15 March 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

Ok let me break down your statement below and how it does not relate to what I said.


I said comparing height does not tell you if it is scaled corrected. I said for that you need to look at the internal volumes of both models. But then you start talking about how flat it is. This is not a aspect of volume or at least an incomplete one it comes down to how the model was redesigned. But your first post talks about scale not design.

Now assuming you mean scale in the standard 3D program way "Uniform Scale .... lets you scale objects by the same amount along all three axes, maintaining the object's original proportions.". Then the scale you were talking about is directly related to volume and density but not design.

If you have a problem with design and not scale then you should have said that instead.

Now lets look at height and width. If you compare the Grasshopper to a shadowhawk it looks very very much like a scaled up Shadowhawk. A mech with good hit boxes and that is hard to hit because it is so thin and tall. A mech that still rates as one of the best IS mediums. If anything proportion wise the Grasshopper has more leg and less torso scale for its size than the Shadowhawk. The width of the torso is also not more than you would expect from scaling up the same basic shape by 15 tons.

So the Grasshopper can be a very good mech If they have done a good job on the hit boxes. And judging by the quirks where two out of three get a center torso buff it suggests they have done a good job on hit boxes. But the trush is we just do not know yet.

Now lets look at your petition. You are saying lets delay the release of the Grasshopper until its "scaling" is fixed. But this is not based on enough information for such a drastic step. You do not even really know if it scaled correctly for a 70 ton mech in relation to volume. And an argument it is to tall and to wide is a matter of personal opinion not fact.

Not only that you do not know how viable it is going to be. You do not know how good the hit boxes are. And no one is 100% sure yet if the quirks are good enough in relation to the hit boxes.

So no they should not delay the release of the Grasshopper and change it to what you think is correct. Does that mean it is perfect probably not. Might it use more quirks or a change to hit boxs in the future maybe. But just like you I have no idea yet.

That being said I would be interested in some one checking the internal volume of each mech and seeing how it fits with reported tonnage. But just looking at the front view is so lacking as to be almost worthless.

WELL said!

[Adamski]

The only reason that the Shadowhawk is viable is because it has jumpjets for mobility and high mounted shoulder hardpoints like a hunchback that aren't as bulky as a hunchback.

People have taken the 3D models from the game and compared them, the Catapult takes up 20% more volume than a Stalker for each ton, when they took this to PGI, the Art Team responded that they were happy with how the models felt and were going to keep them that way.

Guess which mechs are viable in competitive matches,and It isn't the Catapult. (Forget that the Catapult has anemic quirks compared to the Stalker, which shows how out of touch PGI is about balance If you don't rub their nose in it like a badly trained dog).

I will add that assigning a volume per ton and using TT heights are not mutually exclusive as you can always just stretch the width/depth instead of height.

[Burktross]

XX Sulla XX, on 15 March 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

Ok let me break down your statement below and how it does not relate to what I said.


I said comparing height does not tell you if it is scaled corrected. I said for that you need to look at the internal volumes of both models. But then you start talking about how flat it is. This is not a aspect of volume or at least an incomplete one it comes down to how the model was redesigned. But your first post talks about scale not design.

Now assuming you mean scale in the standard 3D program way "Uniform Scale .... lets you scale objects by the same amount along all three axes, maintaining the object's original proportions.". Then the scale you were talking about is directly related to volume and density but not design.

If you have a problem with design and not scale then you should have said that instead.

Now lets look at height and width. If you compare the Grasshopper to a shadowhawk it looks very very much like a scaled up Shadowhawk. A mech with good hit boxes and that is hard to hit because it is so thin and tall. A mech that still rates as one of the best IS mediums. If anything proportion wise the Grasshopper has more leg and less torso scale for its size than the Shadowhawk. The width of the torso is also not more than you would expect from scaling up the same basic shape by 15 tons.

So the Grasshopper can be a very good mech If they have done a good job on the hit boxes. And judging by the quirks where two out of three get a center torso buff it suggests they have done a good job on hit boxes. But the trush is we just do not know yet.

Now lets look at your petition. You are saying lets delay the release of the Grasshopper until its "scaling" is fixed. But this is not based on enough information for such a drastic step. You do not even really know if it scaled correctly for a 70 ton mech in relation to volume. And an argument it is to tall and to wide is a matter of personal opinion not fact.

Not only that you do not know how viable it is going to be. You do not know how good the hit boxes are. And no one is 100% sure yet if the quirks are good enough in relation to the hit boxes.

So no they should not delay the release of the Grasshopper and change it to what you think is correct. Does that mean it is perfect probably not. Might it use more quirks or a change to hit boxs in the future maybe. But just like you I have no idea yet.

That being said I would be interested in some one checking the internal volume of each mech and seeing how it fits with reported tonnage. But just looking at the front view is so lacking as to be almost worthless.

Semantics™

[XX Sulla XX]

Quote

Semantics™

No you are just using arguments not based on sound facts.

[LordBraxton]

Burktross, on 15 March 2015 - 02:46 PM, said:

Semantics™

This.

This is about design, not the power level of the mech.

The grasshopper is a slender 70 tonner, not a slender Atlas.

If you want to talk about volume to weight ratios, lets all put gauss rifles in our Raven-2x's and then talk about it.

XX Sulla XX, on 15 March 2015 - 02:52 PM, said:

No you are just using arguments not based on sound facts.

the point of this thread isnt hitboxes or competitive play, it is design, and making a 70ton mech the height of an Atlas is terrible design,

Edited by LordBraxton, 15 March 2015 - 02:56 PM.

[Burktross]

XX Sulla XX, on 15 March 2015 - 02:52 PM, said:

No you are just using arguments not based on sound facts.

Rather that you're just disagreeing with it.

It's big. Both for its weight and for the game itself (see: Atlas). Whether this will or wont gib it is anyone's guess.

Perhaps it isn't a matter of sheer scale, but at a minimum, it's a design flaw.

Edited by Burktross, 15 March 2015 - 03:01 PM.

[LordBraxton]

I went back through this thread again to try and understand where the atlas-sized-grasshopper people are coming from.

I keep seeing argument about 'competetive play' 'hitboxes' 'you havent played it yet'

Do any of you care about this game OUTSIDE OF THE FINAL SCOREBOARD?

I dont care if the grasshopper is good, if it isnt a grasshopper.

Grasshoppers arent as tall as the friggen Atlas, so even if the grasshopper dethrones the timberwolf, it still isnt the mech I thought I was paying for.

*insert vassago's comment here*

I am a fool, and a fool and his money...

Edited by LordBraxton, 15 March 2015 - 03:02 PM.

[Burktross]

LordBraxton, on 15 March 2015 - 03:01 PM, said:

I went back through this thread again to try and understand where the atlas-sized-grasshopper people are coming from.

I keep seeing argument about 'competetive play' 'hitboxes' 'you havent played it yet'

Do any of you care about this game OUTSIDE OF THE FINAL SCOREBOARD?

I dont care if the grasshopper is good, if it isnt a grasshopper.

Grasshoppers arent as tall as the friggen Atlas, so even if the grasshopper dethrones the timberwolf, it still isnt the mech I thought I was paying for.

*insert vassago's comment here*

I am a fool, and a fool and his money...

At least you're a fool who has money left.
Regardless, I fear you and I are at a disconnect. While I do think it is a design flaw artistically, I also think its target size is a design flaw in gameplay terms.

Edited by Burktross, 15 March 2015 - 03:05 PM.

[XX Sulla XX]

Quote

The only reason that the Shadowhawk is viable is because it has jumpjets for mobility and high mounted shoulder hardpoints like a hunchback that aren't as bulky as a hunchback.

People have taken the 3D models from the game and compared them, the Catapult takes up 20% more volume than a Stalker for each ton, when they took this to PGI, the Art Team responded that they were happy with how the models felt and were going to keep them that way.

Guess which mechs are viable in competitive matches,and It isn't the Catapult. (Forget that the Catapult has anemic quirks compared to the Stalker, which shows how out of touch PGI is about balance If you don't rub their nose in it like a badly trained dog).

I will add that assigning a volume per ton and using TT heights are not mutually exclusive as you can always just stretch the width/depth instead of height.

I would be interested in seeing a list of the volumes of all mechs. After seeing a list of all of them and comparing them we can see exactly how much volume/ton ratio effects how viable it is. But I would bet if you look at all mechs its not much of a factor. I would bet firepower and hit boxes are the main deciding factors.

The Shadowhawk is not good just becaus of jump jets and high hard points. And its not just me saying that. For example Metemechs under stregths "Good hitboxes, probably the best of the Inner Sphere 55 tonners. It has a slim profile,". The Grasshopper can be just as good if PGI did the hit boxes correctly.

Also TT heights and volume are not always going to relate without lots of planning. Mechs are getting complete design up dates. And with much more thought put into pleasing aesthetics.

And height is not the over all main problem or many times a problem at all. How viable a mech is is a combination of many things.

[Redhook]

LordBraxton, on 15 March 2015 - 03:01 PM, said:

I went back through this thread again to try and understand where the atlas-sized-grasshopper people are coming from.

I keep seeing argument about 'competetive play' 'hitboxes' 'you havent played it yet'

Do any of you care about this game OUTSIDE OF THE FINAL SCOREBOARD?

I dont care if the grasshopper is good, if it isnt a grasshopper.

Grasshoppers arent as tall as the friggen Atlas, so even if the grasshopper dethrones the timberwolf, it still isnt the mech I thought I was paying for.

*insert vassago's comment here*

I am a fool, and a fool and his money...

Well apparently they will be.......AND I LOVE IT!

[Burktross]

Redhook, on 15 March 2015 - 03:06 PM, said:

Well apparently they will be.......AND I LOVE IT!

Why do you want a 70 tonner in a 100 ton body?

[XX Sulla XX]

Quote

This.

This is about design, not the power level of the mech.

The grasshopper is a slender 70 tonner, not a slender Atlas.

If you want to talk about volume to weight ratios, lets all put gauss rifles in our Raven-2x's and then talk about it.

Even now you are using arbitrary comparisons. And if it is about design and not volume tonnage ratios then you might want to say so in your original post instead of talking about scaling.

Quote

the point of this thread isnt hitboxes or competitive play, it is design, and making a 70ton mech the height of an Atlas is terrible design,

Height is not a bad thing. A tall thin mech is a good over all design. If the volume is any where close to correct then there is zero problem with the over all design of the mech.

Also metamechs is not just talking about comp play. The Shadowhawk height and thinness is true for all play.

Edited by XX Sulla XX, 15 March 2015 - 03:16 PM.

[Burktross]

XX Sulla XX, on 15 March 2015 - 03:11 PM, said:

Even now you are using arbitrary comparisons. And if it is about design and not volume tonnage ratios then you might want to say so in your original post.


Height is not a bad thing. A tall thin mech is a good over all design. If the volume is any where close to correct then there is zero problem with the over all design of the mech.

Also metamechs is not just talking about comp play. The Shadowhawk height and thinness is true for all play.

Height has its drawbacks. If your opponents are half decent shots, you'll attract more attention than your armor can handle.

[Redhook]

Burktross, on 15 March 2015 - 03:07 PM, said:

Why do you want a 70 tonner in a 100 ton body?

Terrain Dude! LEARN TO USE THE TERRAIN! While keeping my legs behind cover I can exploit new areas on the maps that no other heavy can . Why is that not obvious to you? Or is it that you have only one play style? WHo cares about the hieght!!!!! We are not fighting in a ball room!

[Armorine]

You know what's funny? When y'all get you butts handed to you by this mech your gonna whine. Why cause y'all could whine about anything!

[Burktross]

Redhook, on 15 March 2015 - 03:18 PM, said:

Terrain Dude! LEARN TO USE THE TERRAIN! While keeping my legs behind cover I can exploit new areas on the maps that no other heavy can . Why is that not obvious to you? Or is it that you have only one play style? WHo cares about the hieght!!!!! We are not fighting in a ball room!

I'd agree with you if you have Arrow IV missiles, but you wont be able to do much with that missile hardpoint otherwise. Even then, that makes it a one trick pony-- the Grasshopper would only be good with conveniently sized cover...
There's not much of that. You're only going to be a bigger target to boot, and be focus fired on top of that.