776 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

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

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

It also won't be a real-time shooter where I have direct control over my 'Mech's movement and weapons.

I have zero desire to play any turn-based game.

Entirely different game. HBS BT doesn't replace MWO, it just complements it.

[DaZur]

This just in... World militaries will be implementing a standardized enlistment requirement of 5' or less as metrics have shown they have higher field survivability due to smaller hitboxes.

Automatic rank-up for dwarves and hobbits.

[Novakaine]

The Phoenix Hawk in lore was always a tall broad chested mech.
Look at any of the anime or battletech table top.
The scale is freaking correct.

[MrJeffers]

Mystere, on 19 June 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

It was allegedly not directly about balancing.

That should be obvious given the results.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Either way, whatever comparison you use, a large portion of the mechs are still way the hell taller then they should be. The ATLAS should be 15m tall, as it is, the Warhawk, which is a 12m tall mech is standing tall at an alarming 15 1/2m.

So, the rescale as a whole, I think will end up just being something we QQ about before getting back to playing the same old game. The rescale I dont think changed anything. When I thought rescale, I thought they would actually go about shrinking mechs to the extent of the Catapult. Putting them from way to damn tall, to proper heights.

Atlas is like 18m tall in game, only 3m taller then it should be. Only you know, the difference between 59 feet tall and 49 feet tall......no biggie there....it just makes the rest of the mech significantly larger then it should be overall.

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 19 June 2016 - 10:07 AM.

[xengk]

DaZur, on 19 June 2016 - 08:00 AM, said:

Since all mech are either neutered or female, one needn't worry about clearing any dangly bits.

the kintaro escaped the vibroblade

[Kyle Wright]

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?

Hey Bishop how did you get the mech images to overlap like that? To me this really helped with the scale over lap so you could accurately see where the tonnage is in comparison. Makes me feel more at ease for sure seeing that catapult image.

[Y E O N N E]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 07:50 AM, said:

and in practice the extra armor is near meaningless, considering the inability to use it's arms to soak damage anyhow, and how much more easily it is hit from flanking shots....since last I checked (maybe comps do it difference) but most of the game isn't spent, I hope, staring at each other, but moving, twisting, jumping, etc.

Actually, with 'Mechs like the Catapult and Marauder you do want to spend most of your exposure time essentially staring at the enemy. Since you only need minute left-right motion to spread damage across your three torso sections, you can more readily keep fire on the target while tanking and, if the enemy is humanoid and trying to make use of those arms, you will be putting more damage onto him than he is onto you. Naturally, you are still moving.

[oldradagast]

That Atlas vs. Locust doesn't look right... 5 Locusts at 20 tons should take up the same volume as a single 100 ton mech, but that does not appear to be the case; the Atlas seems too large in comparison. A Locust has a little less volume than one Atlas leg, but 3 Locusts's definitely have less volume than the remaining Atlas components (torsos, head, and arms.) Even depth can't be used to defend this since the Locust is as deep as the Atlas or less deep (looking at the Locust legs.)

[Ade the Rare]

oldradagast, on 19 June 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

That Atlas vs. Locust doesn't look right... 5 Locusts at 20 tons should take up the same volume as a single 100 ton mech, but that does not appear to be the case; the Atlas seems too large in comparison. A Locust has a little less volume than one Atlas leg, but 3 Locusts's definitely have less volume than the remaining Atlas components (torsos, head, and arms.) Even depth can't be used to defend this since the Locust is as deep as the Atlas or less deep (looking at the Locust legs.)

I know right! And omg what the Phoenix Hawk looks like now is *insane*

[Ultimax]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 07:50 AM, said:

and in practice the extra armor is near meaningless, considering the inability to use it's arms to soak damage anyhow, and how much more easily it is hit from flanking shots....since last I checked (maybe comps do it difference) but most of the game isn't spent, I hope, staring at each other, but moving, twisting, jumping, etc.

• Extra armor is always useful. This is why we always max it out. It's why ranged builds will strip down to 3 or even 1 back armor, because taking 6 to 8 in the rear is less useful. Yes those 5 to 7 points have value up front.
  
• Yes, the Catapult can't absorb with its arms. It also has more firepower & higher mounts.
  
• The Phoenix Hawk will absorb more damage with its arms, but that's also where most variants have nearly all of their weapons - this isn't a good thing.
  
• I think the new Catapult scale is good, good for the Catapult. I have no issues with it. The Phoenix hawk is too big for its own good.
  
• You still have to face the front of your mech to shoot an enemy, this is inescapable.

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

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.

I play builds right now that are limited to roughly 30 point alphas, or half to split their fire into sub-30 chunks to avoid Ghost heat.

We're not looking at this in a vacuum.

NoiseCrypt, on 19 June 2016 - 09:42 AM, said:

How about not facetanking... that's what we have been doing...

It has nothing to do with face tanking, you have to actually expose your front profile to shoot other mechs - this is simple reality.

Bigger mechs are bigger targets.

Edited by Ultimax, 19 June 2016 - 10:39 AM.

[DarthHias]

When the Shawk dropped, everyone was screaming it would be DOA because of size. Yet for a long time it was the best Medium Mech in the game. How is that?

[LordKnightFandragon]

AdetheRare, on 19 June 2016 - 10:35 AM, said:

I know right! And omg what the Phoenix Hawk looks like now is *insane*

Yeah, until you scale the Hawk down to it's proper height.

though if done right, the Atlas would be standing 1m higher then the rescaled and remodeled Catapult....so, you kinda over did it, but yeah.

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 19 June 2016 - 10:46 AM.

[Mcgral18]

DarthHias, on 19 June 2016 - 10:40 AM, said:

When the Shawk dropped, everyone was screaming it would be DOA because of size. Yet for a long time it was the best Medium Mech in the game. How is that?

Hitboxes (and Shoulder Pads)

Allows for essentially +30 damage to either ST, if done well
Not all mechs have that ability, of course

[orcrist86]

In this thread: 2 different and unrelated arguments.

Argument 1: rescaling to create a more uniform visual and volumetric progression from small to large benefits balance in the long term.

Argument 2: size should be an adjustable balancing tool like quirks.

one of these arguments is horse crap and wrong headed.

[Ade the Rare]

LordKnightFandragon, on 19 June 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Yeah, until you scale the Hawk down to it's proper height.

though if done right, the Atlas would be standing 1m higher then the rescaled and remodeled Catapult....so, you kinda over did it, but yeah.

I'll admit, it was a joke (check thread title). Well it was, until it died. Like an Oxide post-21st June.

I forgive the Locust being smaller than the Atlas relatively. I'd imagine a fusion reactor would weigh more than armour, and an Atlas would have *way* more armour-to-reactor ratio than a Locust.

[Kroete]

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.

Your lego aws has 60 pieces, your lego kc has 75 pieces, matching the 80 to 100 tons they have.

The aws is humanoid shaped, the kc more crab like,
The aws as is easier to hit from front as the kc,
but the kc is easier to hit from the side. (You know, we have a 3d game(!)?)
Seems fair ...

(Front of lego aws 4x5=20 pieces, front of lego kc 3x4=15, lego aws has 1/4 more front then kc
but
side of aws 5x3=15, side of kc 5x5=25 , lego kc has more then 65% more side then aws.)

If our lego aws twists it can reduces its profile by 25%,
but if our lego kc twists it raises its profile by around 60%
Your right, its not fair, the lego aws is still not tall enough and should be a little taler to match the lego kc...

---

Our lego atlas should then be 5x5x3 to match the wheigt and shape against the aws and kc.
Making it 5x5x5 would be 125 pieces, thats around 166 tons and it would also not match the humanoid shape it has.

Edited by Kroete, 19 June 2016 - 12:01 PM.

[Lykaon]

Stefka Kerensky, on 19 June 2016 - 12:43 AM, said:

Bigger size with 20 tons less.
Mind: I don't give a $h1t if catalupt is a chicken leg, bla bla bla.
Thinking to balance through rescaling is simply r3t4rted mindset.
Every mech should be nearly equally effective, right?
Take a look at Catapult quirks and PXH ones.

I don't give a $h1t if pgi will do a quirk pass.... in MONTHS!!!
Aren0t they able to figure out that a lot of mechs will do $h1t?
Do they really need MONTHS of data to figure it out?

AKA, once again, after 4 years, they still know nothing about its own game.

So, yes.... RIP PGI, RIP.

Isn't the rescale taking into account total volume?

The Catapults nose protrudes a significant amount forward as does the depth of the arm "boxes" increasing the Catapults volume significantly.

Then when you take into account the likely average speeds of the typical catapult (300 engine most common) and the average speed on the Pheonixhawks (with 300 being an entry level engine and 350s being likely) The Catapult will be an easier target to hit and will also be less evasive when torso twisting.

So I'm not panicing ...yet.

[Sader325]

Mech size is not a balancing tool.

It's a balancing concern.

This means that you take a mechs size and shape into consideration for balance, but you never change the size of the mech FOR balance reasons.

When you resize a mech for balance reasons you are inserting your own bias into how you big and small you think things should be. Removing the bias from the equation is much better than making things bigger or smaller because "It's not good it needs to be smaller".

[Scout Derek]

Thread reopened, other threads are soon going to follow in suit save for (possibly) Mcgrals thread and Kapustas. To make the thread alive and active again, the thread is going to be pinned for a day, thank you for the patience and discuss within reason.

Edited by Procurator Derek, 19 June 2016 - 11:58 AM.