17 replies to this topic

[Foxfire]

Thus they justify over and undersized mechs.

While this is true in the BT universe and in the TT game... the issue that comes into play when we have a game like this, which is essentially a specialized FPS, is that size can be a boon or a liability.

Indifference to size works great in the TT game and games like Mechcommander because hit location is randomly determined. When you have a game like this, where players can consistently hit the same component over and over, size makes a difference.

Mechs that have the size of mechs a tier above them without the ability to equip the armor or firepower of that tier are liabilities and are destined to be mediocre chasis.

I find it laughable that the Kintaro on par with most heavies in size, that the QD is on par with most assaults in size. The Raven suffers from this as well, though it's oversized stature isn't as clear cut as it is with heavier mechs.. this is partially because of the speed of the mech.. and partially because of the 'thin' nature of most areas of the mech.

[Tezcatli]

It didn't seem like a problem. Until some of the later mechs. Did perhaps something happen to their process when creating mechs?

[Foxfire]

I suspect it is because they are trying to scale mechs to what they are 'in universe'..

[Lord Perversor]

Foxfire, on 31 August 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

Thus they justify over and undersized mechs.

While this is true in the BT universe and in the TT game... the issue that comes into play when we have a game like this, which is essentially a specialized FPS, is that size can be a boon or a liability.

Indifference to size works great in the TT game and games like Mechcommander because hit location is randomly determined. When you have a game like this, where players can consistently hit the same component over and over, size makes a difference.

Mechs that have the size of mechs a tier above them without the ability to equip the armor or firepower of that tier are liabilities and are destined to be mediocre chasis.

I find it laughable that the Kintaro on par with most heavies in size, that the QD is on par with most assaults in size. The Raven suffers from this as well, though it's oversized stature isn't as clear cut as it is with heavier mechs.. this is partially because of the speed of the mech.. and partially because of the 'thin' nature of most areas of the mech.

Tbh i found there is a lot and i mean a lot of variables that need to be taken into consideration before find the **right** size for each battlemech.

Some mechs can be larger despise weighthing less, as long that compensates something. (QKD it's a prime example, right now it's a walking dmg sponge properly piloted you'll hardly will take one down without cause mayor dmg to most amor parts )

also the Shape (arm position,weapon layouts can totally change the way to play even 2 chassis that seems totally equal )

I think some mechs need an animation rework (part tme RE-scale, part time Section rework) specially after they have been massively used and some of the maybe inherent flaws can be detected.

[Foxfire]

I'm not trying to suggest that all mechs should be the same size.. but that there is a major issue when you have mechs in a lower class that is larger than some and on par with most mechs of the class above it. There are some undersized mechs, of course, but the mechs that are undersized are on a magnitude much less significant than those that are oversized.

I harp on the Kintaro because the blasted things are taller than the missile pods on a Cat.

[TheMadTypist]

I think the excuse they gave for 'mechs of varying size to mass ratios was density.

That can mean one of three things: Either it was a quick excuse to make up for poor quality control during rushed production of in-game resources, they're considering "in universe" realism as the primary driver for 'mech design rather than "Is this good/fun for the game?", or they panicked after seeing the power of the undersized Stalker and have been desperately overreacting whenever such a threat looms again since.

There is a fourth option, of course, where they made these decisions because they thought it was necessary for the good of the game. But this means they think having inferior- not merely differentiated, but inferior- designs, money pits for newbies to fall into, with designs that lower time to kill in an environment where it is already startlingly low for a 'mech game, is good for the overall experience. And I'd prefer to think of them as rushed or misguided, than truly incompetent or malevolent.

A recent "Ask the Devs" did mention there were a few designs they wanted to go back and redo a bit, which is a positive sign they are aware of the issue and are willing to take the time to improve the content they have, and hopefully examine the process that produces that sort of error in the first place. They may, however, have merely been saying that as a placating gesture in the wake of the furor over the introduction of inescapable third person, as statements from before that time indicated they were not interested in undertaking the effort of rescaling. So it may be so much dust in the wind. Time (and patch notes) will tell. I, personally, would be happy to forgo a new 'mech this month if it meant an older one got the attention it needed.

[Lord Perversor]

TheMadTypist, on 31 August 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

I think the excuse they gave for 'mechs of varying size to mass ratios was density.

That can mean one of three things: Either it was a quick excuse to make up for poor quality control during rushed production of in-game resources, they're considering "in universe" realism as the primary driver for 'mech design rather than "Is this good/fun for the game?", or they panicked after seeing the power of the undersized Stalker and have been desperately overreacting whenever such a threat looms again since.

There is a fourth option, of course, where they made these decisions because they thought it was necessary for the good of the game. But this means they think having inferior- not merely differentiated, but inferior- designs, money pits for newbies to fall into, with designs that lower time to kill in an environment where it is already startlingly low for a 'mech game, is good for the overall experience. And I'd prefer to think of them as rushed or misguided, than truly incompetent or malevolent.

A recent "Ask the Devs" did mention there were a few designs they wanted to go back and redo a bit, which is a positive sign they are aware of the issue and are willing to take the time to improve the content they have, and hopefully examine the process that produces that sort of error in the first place. They may, however, have merely been saying that as a placating gesture in the wake of the furor over the introduction of inescapable third person, as statements from before that time indicated they were not interested in undertaking the effort of rescaling. So it may be so much dust in the wind. Time (and patch notes) will tell. I, personally, would be happy to forgo a new 'mech this month if it meant an older one got the attention it needed.

some of the earlier mechs suffered a couple of Tunning passes on the closed beta

[Foxfire]

The thing that doesn't make me hopeful about them reviewing scaling is that the newest mech, the Kintaro, is one of the worst scaled mechs released. If they were truly reconsidering the scaling issue, they should have delayed the Kintaro and started with it as a new mech to redress the issue.

[TheMadTypist]

Lord Perversor, on 31 August 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

some of the earlier mechs suffered a couple of Tunning passes on the closed beta

I was there for that- hitbox tweaks. Not rescaling.

It's why the pauldrons over the tops of the Awesome's shoulders count as part of the arms now, instead of side torso.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Foxfire, on 31 August 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

The thing that doesn't make me hopeful about them reviewing scaling is that the newest mech, the Kintaro, is one of the worst scaled mechs released. If they were truly reconsidering the scaling issue, they should have delayed the Kintaro and started with it as a new mech to redress the issue.

I imagine the Kintaro was rushed into production because they wanted to try and get SSRMs balanced before launch

[Ozric]

In reality, of course small things can be heavier than large things depending on a myriad of conditions. But in a computer game, the little differences in scale trick the eye and make it seem worse than it is. And of course, there are targeting issues with being too big or too small for your tonnage.

I would like all mechs to use the same density scale (as some posters on the forums have demonstrated already), which would fix the subconscious niggling of things being out of whack. It doesn't help that weight is an important factor in MWO, and it needs a coherent scaling system to maintain immersion.

[Straften]

[SweetJackal]

People need to remember that this is a shooter. Total Hitbox Volume is something that is very important in balancing and design. If you have a larger hitbox there needs to be a reason for it. In many shooters that have differently sized hitboxes (TF2, Gotham City Fighters, Brink for example) being larger in size means you get more health, have more powerful weapons and are often saddled with the drawback of being slower. Smaller hitboxes tend to be more mobile but often have less health or more limited weaponry.

Not only this, but we -need- hitbox standardizations for the different hit locations on different weight classes. I understand that "Mechs Are Different" from each other and you can see this with how we have the 3 mech 'styles' (Boxed Block Shoulders Humanoid, Fat-Body Slim-Arms Style and the general Inhuman Styles of the Stalker, Jenner, Jager and the like).

The size of the hitbox of the mech, the hitboxes for the different locations, the general shape and style, the hardpoint loadout and the weight of the mech need to be balanced with each other.

So yes, it is a lot to take into account and right now it feels that PGI isn't weighing all the factors.

[Elyam]

I do not believe that the best game comes from perfection of technical execution in things such as surety of size to class for the reasons mentioned in this thread. This isn't a shooter existing in a vacuum. It shouldn't just strive to be the best FPS it can be, but the best fps simulating the actual Battletech MechWarrior experience. That means some heavy mediums that are as big as mid-heavies since that is what exists in the universe. Variation brings a better game, even that which will be perceived as an obvious technical handicap, as long as this is in moderation, and a 55 as big as a 65 fits within that envelope.

There are so many more significant things to worry about at this stage, like the full implimentation of a great CW in which to have all of this.

Edited by Elyam, 01 September 2013 - 07:58 PM.

[TheMadTypist]

Elyam, on 01 September 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

There are so many more significant things to worry about at this stage, like the full implimentation of a great CW in which to have all of this.

One, things like CW utilize different members of the development team, and worrying about things like this wouldn't take away from it.

Two, CW won't be in in any serious manner for months, and there are suffering designs right now.

Three, no matter what windowdressing you put around the outside, we're always going to have the same core of gameplay that we have right now. Everybody involved should be striving to make that the strongest core possible, and that means not perpetuating problems like this, making them harder to fix down the road. The more designs they have to resize, the more effort and cost go into it, the more that takes from further developments. Like community warfare, like the solaris expansion, like the clan invasion. An ounce of prevention now will indirectly benefit everything that comes after. Look at the nightmare the current UI turned out to be- and look how much is being held back because it wasn't fixed sooner. Problems need to be confronted and ironed out before they become so omnipresent that the solution is more expensive to the future of the game than letting the problem continue.

And variation is fine. Flat inferiority is not.

[SweetJackal]

Elyam, on 01 September 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

I do not believe that the best game comes from perfection of technical execution in things such as surety of size to class for the reasons mentioned in this thread. This isn't a shooter existing in a vacuum. It shouldn't just strive to be the best FPS it can be, but the best fps simulating the actual Battletech MechWarrior experience. That means some heavy mediums that are as big as mid-heavies since that is what exists in the universe. Variation brings a better game, even that which will be perceived as an obvious technical handicap, as long as this is in moderation, and a 55 as big as a 65 fits within that envelope.

There are so many more significant things to worry about at this stage, like the full implimentation of a great CW in which to have all of this.

I can agree with the point you are making but technical execution does matter a lot. A game generally isn't made by exceptionally good technical execution but it can be sunk if it's done poorly.

There does need to be variety and different shapes. But we also cannot dismiss hitbox size as a factor.

To do so would be to say that it would be perfectly fine for the Female MP Characters in the more recent Gears Of War to have a smaller hit box than the guys and yet functionally be the same. (Not the case, just an example)

It matters even more as this game is built up from some of the basic Battletech concepts. Hitpoints by location and hits by location with the ability change those hitpoints within limits and having weapons and gear tied to locations. Hitboxes matter all the more because of this.

Dropping the ball on this matter means that mechs come out that will underperform as they are just easier to play against. This hurts the competitive scene and cheapens the experience of new players and the uninformed as they are getting something that is weaker without any warning or trade-off.

Edit:

TL:DR?

Not creating a balanced environment undermines the variety in the first place. Mechs hurt by a lack of standardized Hitbox Volumes means that people will be less inclined to use them. Mechs benefiting from that same lack of standard Volume Values means that players will flock to them. You end up seeing the same mechs over and over, with the same cookie cutter builds.

Edited by SuckyJack, 01 September 2013 - 08:26 PM.

[Foxfire]

Elyam, on 01 September 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

I do not believe that the best game comes from perfection of technical execution in things such as surety of size to class for the reasons mentioned in this thread. This isn't a shooter existing in a vacuum. It shouldn't just strive to be the best FPS it can be, but the best fps simulating the actual Battletech MechWarrior experience. That means some heavy mediums that are as big as mid-heavies since that is what exists in the universe. Variation brings a better game, even that which will be perceived as an obvious technical handicap, as long as this is in moderation, and a 55 as big as a 65 fits within that envelope.

There are so many more significant things to worry about at this stage, like the full implimentation of a great CW in which to have all of this.

First of all... implementation of CW has little to do with the art department.

Second... I'm not advocating that they make every chasis the same size. At issue, though, is that the game style that they chose doesn't lend itself to a true translation of the BT universe. I would rather sacrifice having correct 'in universe' scaling to ensure that each and every chasis is viable. Not variants, but overall chasis. I want to have a game where I can go out and buy my favorite mech and not be pigeon-holed into a subpar mech because the Mech is monstrously over sized, or is nothing more than a giant walking torso.

Keeping in universe scaling in a game that allows you to aim and hit components over and over reliably simply doesn't work.

[Elyam]

We'll just disagree on this. I understand the size concern but do not share it when we're talking around a 15% or less size variance. Size variations may also be offset by other mech model quirks.

(and as far as the mention of CW, I only was referring to where player attention is in posts, not to developer resources)

Edited by Elyam, 03 September 2013 - 02:04 PM.