776 replies to this topic

[Mister Blastman]

Stefka Kerensky, on 19 June 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

Quirks make a mech good or bad.
But rescale made PXH really doa....

Players make a 'mech good or bad.

But bad hardpoints and bad mounts are sometimes hard to overcome.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 19 June 2016 - 08:48 AM.

[Lily from animove]

GreenHell, on 19 June 2016 - 03:37 AM, said:

I'm going to laugh my rear end off when the net-result of this whole rescale patch is ZERO. That's right, I'm predicting that absolutely nothing will happen. BOOM!

The same mechs will still be used and still be just as powerful as before. People will still whine and moan that their favorite didn't get the 'love it needs'.

And I'll be there, about 600m away, 75% of my mech covered by a rock, blasting people with my RFL that basically didn't change at all, and happy as a clown about it.

TL:DR- Calm down, backup, and just let things pan out for a bit. In the end, things will probably be exactly the same.

(until power-draw...)

if you think that making some of the bigger lights at the size they plan not iompact the agme, then why not making the ACH and FS9 atlas size? would surely also not impact the game.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky, on 19 June 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

Wait... How many tonnes is each of those mechs in the pictu....

Uh oh... My wallet wants to have a word with me... I think im in trouble...

(P.s... Most of the time, engagements come from the front profile, thats why we front load our armor...)

(Also, we should consider targetable surface area, not volumetric empty space, because a lot of center torso mass is blocked by side torsos. Pretty sure theres a damage reduction on damage transfer through destroyed components).

Hopefully your wallet is telling you it is closed when it comes to PGI.

[Zolaz]

PGI did another outstanding job with yet another another roll out of an awesome feature. Y'all did such a great job I went and gave Blizzard 40 bucks for Overwatch.

[DaZur]

Cathy, on 19 June 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

Ok not arguing the point but if the Mech bay pictures are inaccurate, in a before and after,even with a disclaimer, why in hell to sweet jesus did PGI use the mech bay shot.

Surely they have the basic I.Q to realise that using them would cause a **** storm if they are inaccurate ?

Meh... Unless they simply posted 3D Studiomax anthros, the mechbay image is probably the most reasonable compromise.

I mean seriously... They could have posted in-match shots and we all know how accurate those pics are/were!

(Referencing the dozens of screen shots that PGI used to share that the community would spend hours dissecting, drawing vanishing reference points and counting pixels).

[Trauglodyte]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 07:41 AM, said:

sadly, no the locust can't just run between the Atlas' legs.....

I demand a Free Look for Legs button so that a mech can act like it is trying to desperately NOT step on the tail of some idiotic cat humping its ankles!

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:

I almost feel bad doing this, but at the end of the day, I am seeing some horribly misleading posts, many by people I genuinely like and respect.

The Mechlab Camera does NOT show mechs to scale. This has been known and stated by PGI for a very long time. Yet people (and myself included before I knew that) post images from them as scale "gospel".

This isn't helped by PGI using them also at times (honestly while Alex put a huge amount of work into the patch notes, which I for one, appreciate the heck out of, the inclusion of the Mechlab comparos seem to have caused more issues on the forums than good.)

I do not feel inclined to take every possible comparo (the Warhammer to 55 tonners is another laugher that I probably will add, though, when I get a chance), I'm going to take one that is being used heavily to "prove the rescale is bad".....

and then debunk it.



From the Patch Notes:
"Just in case, please note that these silhouettes are captured using an orthographic camera, whereas the Re-Scale comparison images in the above links are taken with the standard MechLab perspective camera. As a result of that difference, scales may appear slightly different if comparing 'Mechs between the two images"



An overlay using their Orthographic camera comparison

100% debunks the OP, and pretty much every similar one I have seen.

Even just comparing the raw side by sides of the Orthos sillhouettes and the Mech Lab pic, the discrepancy is pretty apparent.

Add into the fact that we are dealing with 3D assets, which have depth, and focusing only on the frontal image is totally misleading (IDK about you, but I try not to stare at the other guy the whole match)

I'm sorry to call you guys out, but I'm "speechless" at the Trump-like levels people seem to want to go on this, when "the truth is out there" for everyone.

Constructive criticism is fine. Concerns are understandable. But let's at least TRY to use the info that PGI put out for everyone to see to be accurate, at least, please?

Bishop,

Since the Catapult has been such a lightning rod for "rescale fail wut?!?", would you mind doing the composite of the Catapult vs. the Mad Cat? Pitting it against a Phoenix Hawk isn't really cool because the tonnage difference is so drastic and they're different types of mechs (humanoid vs. chicken leg).

Edited by Trauglodyte, 19 June 2016 - 09:01 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 08:10 AM, said:

Another verdict is that most people cannot think outside of 2D referencing, and so make realyl ludicrous claims like frontal silhouette is all that matters on a moving, 3D construct. Maybe I actualyl am in the 1%...but me, I tend to move, flank, twist, and as such the side profile, 3/4 profile, Legs at front, upper body turned sideways profile...all matter.

And because I don't play in comp leagues, LRMs sometime happen too. And just ask any poor King Crab that got caught away from cover (and or narc'd) just how meaningless that top profile is.

Seems like a lot of smart people who can't process the whole picture. What's not clear is if that is because they simply can't, or it doesn't suit their agenda.

Front and side are all that matter, because any other angle is just a combination of the two, and you only ever see one amalgamation at any given instant. Even the top is just a combination of front and side (short depth + skinny width = small top a la Urbie while long + wide = large top like King Crab).

And what I am saying is a true statement. It is you who can't seem to process the reality. Total volume doesn't matter because it doesn't tell you anything about the target other than how heavy it is...which is a number we don't need because we know how heavy it is already.

[Bishop Steiner]

Stefka Kerensky, on 19 June 2016 - 08:22 AM, said:

If you think that in a match you can always show your sides, and enemies cannot and won't ever focus your face, well... then... it truly depends against you are playing, chief . Maybe against tier 3-4-5 can work.

IT's pretty delirant when people say "Yes pxh is tall and large.... but it is thin, so get gud".

ROLF



I think you are the only one thinking mwo has something to do with BT.
You are in an island, bruh.

How MWO is played in Comp Tier, according to Stefka

Stefka Kerensky, on 19 June 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

Please edit your post:


Thank you.

edit: plase note that the dimension between the torsi are very similar, but meanwhile you can mont and do good build using STD engine with the catapult... the PXH must mount XL. And with far less armor.
And with laughable quirks.

yes, because 50% accel/decel combined with 120kph speed and 25-35% twist rate has zero impact on survivability.

[Lily from animove]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 09:07 AM, said:

How MWO is played in Comp Tier, according to Stefka



yes, because 50% accel/decel combined with 120kph speed and 25-35% twist rate has zero impact on survivability.

this videos still looks more complex in its movement and actions than what some Mechwarriors do in MWO ^^

[Bishop Steiner]

Lily from animove, on 19 June 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

I think the 50t catapult is fine in this size

yes the cata had unsuited size and hitboxes but this clearly shrinked too far when you compare it to other mechs.

yes, if this game was played between 2D cutouts that never changed facing, I would so totally agree with you.

Trauglodyte, on 19 June 2016 - 08:57 AM, said:

I demand a Free Look for Legs button so that a mech can act like it is trying to desperately NOT step on the tail of some idiotic cat humping its ankles!



Bishop,

Since the Catapult has been such a lightning rod for "rescale fail wut?!?", would you mind doing the composite of the Catapult vs. the Mad Cat? Pitting it against a Phoenix Hawk isn't really cool because the tonnage difference is so drastic and they're different types of mechs (humanoid vs. chicken leg).

it'll be a couple hours, IRL calls, but I'll do so when I get home.

[Ultimax]

1453 R, on 19 June 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

Wait...you're saying that the forum reaction to a feature which has only been previewed and not even actively implemented yet, and thusly one which we have no actual experience of yet,

This is false.

We have years of in game experience testing the survivability of mechs against each other, and mechs which are larger with larger hitboxes are demonstrably worse.

The reaction you are seeing is because somehow, after all this time, PGI (and bizarrely many players) seem to have forgotten that information exists.


We have years of shooting the Atlas pre-quirk, and we know how survivable it is now - finally - after quirks.

It got larger, and many of them had their agility quirks removed.

The Black Knight got massively larger, and ... had its structure quirks reduced (again), the 6 had its agility quirks reduced.

This was a mech getting destroyed easily until it was heavily quirked for structure.

It's now larger, and has even lower structure quirks - do you seriously believe we can't understand how this mech will be affected until we play it? That's ridiculous.


We know exactly how this is going to play out, this isn't theory craft to many of us.


How many years of players saying "X, Y & Z mech are too large." only to find them unchanged in this rescale, or worse actually larger do you actually need?

The Grasshopper was already too large for it's own good and very vulnerable, it's only good role was having JJs and/or sniping builds - it is now larger than it was.

It is clearly worse, this is not even arguable.

On top of that, nearly all variants are losing their firepower quirks - which in their own way (by allowing favorable trades to be made) also reduces its survivability even further.

Edited by Ultimax, 19 June 2016 - 09:14 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

DaZur, on 19 June 2016 - 08:56 AM, said:

Meh... Unless they simply posted 3D Studiomax anthros, the mechbay image is probably the most reasonable compromise.

I mean seriously... They could have posted in-match shots and we all know how accurate those pics are/were!

(Referencing the dozens of screen shots that PGI used to share that the community would spend hours dissecting, drawing vanishing reference points and counting pixels).

Probably what they should have done was skipped the whole "Before and After" stuff and simply did an in-game line-up; here are the Lights, Mediums, Heavies, Assaults, blah blah blah.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 19 June 2016 - 09:17 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

EgoSlayer, on 19 June 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

Exceptions would be LRMs which always have a Z axis component to them, and strikes.

and one can't forget the Z axis for said LRMs (or snipers in high perches, which are also a thing, especially on Tourmaline) even if the 1% tends to because Comps don't LRM bruh.

If mechs stared like cardboard cutouts, I would concede that the front facing be the only consideration. They don't, and it's not.

Yeonne Greene, on 19 June 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

Front and side are all that matter, because any other angle is just a combination of the two, and you only ever see one amalgamation at any given instant. Even the top is just a combination of front and side (short depth + skinny width = small top a la Urbie while long + wide = large top like King Crab).

And what I am saying is a true statement. It is you who can't seem to process the reality. Total volume doesn't matter because it doesn't tell you anything about the target other than how heavy it is...which is a number we don't need because we know how heavy it is already.

No,. it's a biased statement.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lily from animove, on 19 June 2016 - 09:07 AM, said:

this videos still looks more complex in its movement and actions than what some Mechwarriors do in MWO ^^

Sadly true. Apparently some Tier 1s, too if their posts are to be taken literally.

[LT. HARDCASE]

Ultimax, on 19 June 2016 - 09:10 AM, said:

This is false.

We have years of in game experience testing the survivability of mechs against each other, and mechs which are larger with larger hitboxes are demonstrably worse.

The reaction you are seeing is because somehow, after all this time, PGI (and bizarrely many players) seem to have forgotten that information exists.


We have years of shooting the Atlas pre-quirk, and we know how survivable it is now - finally - after quirks.

It got larger, and many of them had their agility quirks removed.

The Black Knight got massively larger, and ... had its structure quirks reduced, the 6 had its agility quirks reduced.


We know exactly how this is going to play out, this isn't theory craft to many of us.

Yeah, I mean, we've been looking at mech pixels and shooting them for years. Why would we need any more experience to know larger mechs are easier to shoot? That knowledge is intrinsic to the game.

[Xetelian]

Kroete, on 19 June 2016 - 06:02 AM, said:

Let us play with lego ...
... do you want to build some mechs together?

Here we have the hbk:
4 wide, 3 deep, 4 high
that 48 pieces

Now lets build a nova:
4 wide, 4 deep, 3 high
What, again 48 pieces?

Isnt that unfair?

No its not, because we have a 3d game and you cant judge it with 2d comparsions.

Does the AWS have the Width of a DWF and KGC? Yes
is it 100 tons? No.

So why should it be so damn big?

It isn't tall, but it is WIDE very wide.

Is that fair?

Lets lego that out

The AWS is 4 high 5 wide and 3 deep
The KGC is 3 high 5 wide 5 deep
Does being deeper mean the KGC and the AWS are fair in proportion?

The atlas will then be 5 high, 5 wide and 5 deep
Does that make the AWS small enough? because its a little shorter about as wide but not as deep?

We can play make believe all day but it doesn't change the facts.

[C E Dwyer]

Hit the Deck, on 19 June 2016 - 12:51 AM, said:

HBS' BattleTech won't have this scaling, hitbox distribution, or hardpoint location BS

Won't matter even if they do, hitting and where is by RNG like every other turn based game out there.

Would matter far less, here as well, if the game wasn't hit where you point.

[Ultimax]

LT. HARDCASE, on 19 June 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

Yeah, I mean, we've been looking at mech pixels and shooting them for years. Why would we need any more experience to know larger mechs are easier to shoot? That knowledge is intrinsic to the game.

Seriously, I'm baffled that people can even say something like "try it first".

Are you delirious? What do you think we have been doing in the game for years?

Or rather, just WTF have THEY been doing?

[Trauglodyte]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

it'll be a couple hours, IRL calls, but I'll do so when I get home.

Working on the weekend, buddy? I hate that for you.

Ultimax, on 19 June 2016 - 09:16 AM, said:

Seriously, I'm baffled that people can even say something like "try it first".

Are you delirious? What do you think we have been doing in the game for years?

Or rather, just WTF have THEY been doing?

We're also looking at this in a vacuum. Granted, on the June release, this is all going to be worse than it is now because bigger targets means that you can more readily and easily hit them.

In the future, though, we'll have other mechanics installed to reduce the added TTK. That is already in the works and will start with Power Draw. It won't be enough, by any means, but it is a start.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 19 June 2016 - 09:21 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Xetelian, on 19 June 2016 - 09:15 AM, said:

Does the AWS have the Width of a DWF and KGC? Yes
is it 100 tons? No.

So why should it be so damn big?

It isn't tall, but it is WIDE very wide.

Is that fair?

Lets lego that out

The AWS is 4 high 5 wide and 3 deep
The KGC is 3 high 5 wide 5 deep
Does being deeper mean the KGC and the AWS are fair in proportion?

The atlas will then be 5 high, 5 wide and 5 deep
Does that make the AWS small enough? because its a little shorter about as wide but not as deep?

We can play make believe all day but it doesn't change the facts.

And tell me, what's easier to damage, and more importantly, damage torsos, from the side?

The DWF or the Awesome.

Oh yeah..the DWF because it's so much frigging DEEPER than the Awesome.

Because yeah, ya know, when I play MWO, all I ever see is the front of the mech......

So yeah. Facts. Amazing what they actualyl reveal when we take our blinders off.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 19 June 2016 - 09:18 AM.