91 replies to this topic

[Burktross]

Ultimatum X, on 15 March 2015 - 07:45 PM, said:

Hi there, Mr. Stawman, nice to meet you.



Did I say DoA? Or are you just resorting to dishonest tactics again?


Exposing less of your mech when you fire is important.

Was that easy enough for you this time?

Though you're certainly correct, I figure Bishop is just busting your chops with the hyperbole

Can we not create a fight? Please?

[Xetelian]

Way too tall and I'll probably focus fire them till I get used to it not being a freaking battlemaster.

[KraftySOT]

And it looks like dem mounts arent all that high either. The cataphracts two are higher. Unless youre talking about that one crit missile spot.

Was really hoping for a tiny Banshee with jump jets. Like. Shadowhawk size.

Burktross, on 15 March 2015 - 07:49 PM, said:

Can we not create a fight? Please?

Xetelian, on 15 March 2015 - 07:50 PM, said:

Way too tall and I'll probably focus fire them till I get used to it not being a freaking battlemaster.

That made me lol.

[Corbenik]

El Bandito, on 15 March 2015 - 07:48 PM, said:

I never said the GHR is DoA. If anything, I said it will perform OK. http://mwomercs.com/...ize-comparison/





However, that still does not excuse PGI for messing up the scaling and making a 70 ton mech as tall as an Atlas, and it still does not make those who say they are fine with the giant GHR, any less dumb.
We should not tolerate such scaling errors, period. Not when PGI has been making mechs for over 3 years.

What if the modeler who was suppose to work on the Zeus worked on the Hopper and vice versa! and they got confused!

[Burktross]

Corbenik, on 15 March 2015 - 08:03 PM, said:

What if the modeler who was suppose to work on the Zeus worked on the Hopper and vice versa! and they got confused!

probably.

[Scurry]

Mmmm......still looks a lot like a 70t Quickdraw to me. Not sure if the extra tonnage and armour will make up for the legs.

[Ultimax]

El Bandito, on 15 March 2015 - 07:48 PM, said:

However, that still does not excuse PGI for messing up the scaling and making a 70 ton mech as tall as an Atlas, and it still does not make those who say they are fine with the giant GHR, any less dumb.
We should not tolerate such scaling errors, period. Not when PGI has been making mechs for over 3 years.

Once again, the important point.

Burktross, on 15 March 2015 - 07:49 PM, said:

Though you're certainly correct, I figure Bishop is just busting your chops with the hyperbole

Can we not create a fight? Please?

Using that kind of hyperbole is basically being a liar.

I call people out on it when they are dishonest like that, because I go out of my way not to treat other posters like that.



However, for the sake of your thread that you clearly put a lot of effort into. I will leave it be.

[Lynx7725]

El Bandito, on 15 March 2015 - 07:48 PM, said:

I never said the GHR is DoA. If anything, I said it will perform OK. http://mwomercs.com/...ize-comparison/

Didn't say you hon.

El Bandito, on 15 March 2015 - 07:48 PM, said:

However, that still does not excuse PGI for messing up the scaling and making a 70 ton mech as tall as an Atlas, and it still does not make those who say they are fine with the giant GHR, any less dumb.
We should not tolerate such scaling errors, period. Not when PGI has been making mechs for over 3 years.

Let's be honest here. FASA, and then Catty Lab (plus all the in-betweens), never even sorted out the "big/ small" issue. There's never, to my understanding, a firmed line that says Assaults have to be physically bigger than Heavies. They just have to be heavier. PGI by extension are not bound by that either, and only has to do it from a game balance perspective.

Any such thoughts that heavies have to be smaller than assaults is by our own projections. Calling it a scaling error is assuming you know the "correct" way to do things, which even the original designers never bothered with (for the obvious reason that Battlemechs just need to keep between IIRC 10 m and 20m tall? Come to think of it, I can call some of the lights too short...)

And I say again, give it time to demonstrate what it can do. The height "disadvantage" can be offset by other things that are in the performance and not in the pics so far. Whether it's fine or not can be discussed AFTER the mech comes out and people have a chance to play around in one.

[KraftySOT]

Lynx7725, on 15 March 2015 - 08:11 PM, said:

Didn't say you hon.


Let's be honest here. FASA, and then Catty Lab (plus all the in-betweens), never even sorted out the "big/ small" issue.

Yes they did.

Go load up megamek. In multiple locations, weight, weight differential between actors, size, type of movement (chicken vs man vs quad) and even quirked a bunch of mechs based on lore to have varying degrees of performance at a number of things, including climbing hills.

[El Bandito]

Lynx7725, on 15 March 2015 - 08:11 PM, said:

Let's be honest here. FASA, and then Catty Lab (plus all the in-betweens), never even sorted out the "big/ small" issue. There's never, to my understanding, a firmed line that says Assaults have to be physically bigger than Heavies. They just have to be heavier. PGI by extension are not bound by that either, and only has to do it from a game balance perspective.

Any such thoughts that heavies have to be smaller than assaults is by our own projections. Calling it a scaling error is assuming you know the "correct" way to do things, which even the original designers never bothered with (for the obvious reason that Battlemechs just need to keep between IIRC 10 m and 20m tall? Come to think of it, I can call some of the lights too short...)

And I say again, give it time to demonstrate what it can do. The height "disadvantage" can be offset by other things that are in the performance and not in the pics so far. Whether it's fine or not can be discussed AFTER the mech comes out and people have a chance to play around in one.

Correct size comparison chart. Notice the height difference between the Grasshopper and the Banshee.




What we have in MWO.



Need I say more?

Edited by El Bandito, 15 March 2015 - 08:26 PM.

[KraftySOT]

Narrow, Low Profile, Compact, Easy to Pilot, Hyperextending hands. Reinforced legs.

Its all there:

http://www.sarna.net...i/Design_Quirks
Low-Mounted Arms[edit]
While most 'Mechs mount their arms in a "natural" position high on the torso, some sling the arms well below their centerline. Applicable to: BattleMechs and IndustrialMechs with arm-mounted weapons. Incompatible with the overhead arms quirk ^[51]

For people who think low mounted arm weps didnt matter in the TT...

Poor Performance[edit]
The Poor Performance Quirk reflects a unit that is unable to accelerate to maximum speed quickly; as a result, any unit with this Quirk must spend one turn limited to moving at the unit's Cruising, Safe Thrust or Walking rating before being able to use up to its full movement allowance in the next turn.^[63] Applicable to: AeroSpace Fighters, BattleMechs, Battle Armor, Combat Vehicles, DropShips, Small Craft, Support Vehicles, WarShips^[37] and ProtoMech.

Your Direwolf, Stalker, even a bunch of the Heavies have that.

Chargers dont.

Chargers are awesome.

El Bandito, on 15 March 2015 - 08:25 PM, said:

Correct size comparison chart. Notice the height difference between the Grasshopper and the Banshee.

Hey look, its exactly the picture im thinking of every time ive said I wished my Wubhuppah would come out like a tiny Banshee.

Oh yeah and that guy the other day who said we have unknown obscure mechs like....the Banshee.

Suck it.

Edited by KraftySOT, 15 March 2015 - 08:28 PM.

[Lynx7725]

El Bandito, on 15 March 2015 - 08:25 PM, said:

Correct size comparison chart. Notice the height difference between the Grasshopper and the Banshee.

What we have in MWO.

Need I say more?

Now THIS, I call fair. Since there is source material, should fix. No contest on my end.

KraftySOT: Design quirks are fairly new and aren't even written into the TROs fully, so I consider that's a bit reaching. I know, I know, I want the mechs to all have a reasonable utility in game also, but let's face it, the original source material never mandated any sort of sizing, and given the wide variety of battlemech manufacturers, the devs have a lot of room to play with.

If the height problem for the Hopper is a serious issue after it comes out, then I agree fully that should be adjusted. As it is, I can see advantages to it too, so I have to see the mech as a package, and I can only do that after it comes out.

A lot of people are going to drop fluff-vs-game balance on top of my head for the above, and guess what? If you don't get why and when fluff is important, then I'm wasting my breath, and I got enough things happening in life.

[Ultimax]

Lynx7725, on 15 March 2015 - 08:32 PM, said:

If the height problem for the Hopper is a serious issue after it comes out, then I agree fully that should be adjusted. As it is, I can see advantages to it too, so I have to see the mech as a package, and I can only do that after it comes out.

Has any mech's size ever been adjusted?

[KraftySOT]

Lynx7725, on 15 March 2015 - 08:32 PM, said:

KraftySOT: Design quirks are fairly new and aren't even written into the TROs fully, so I consider that's a bit reaching. I know, I know, I want the mechs to all have a reasonable utility in game also, but let's face it, the original source material never mandated any sort of sizing, and given the wide variety of battlemech manufacturers, the devs have a lot of room to play with.

Sadly, it IS original source material because its source material put out by the people who own the ability to do that. So its canon. It hasnt been retroactively applied to everything because theres of course the matter of who owns alot of those TROs, and what has to be done to print them again.

However in Megamek, theyve been pretty much all applied. And they existed before PGI made MWO or was even planning on making MWO so theres no legitimate reason you cant either use those, use the spirit of those, or make up your own, on a mech by mech basis lore wise, quirks for them. Which they said theyd do after pew pew quirks, theyd do more inventive ones.

Still waiting on that.

But you have a plethora of canon source material to draw from, that PGI and most people (even some Btech players) dont know exist.

Theres also alot of stuff NOT on Sarna, and Sarna seems to be pretty well accepted as a source for all things 'legit' but you have your variance of opinion there.

Even in the TROs however, the originals, they do mention size, shape, have pictures of those sizes and talk about how some mechs are simply better or worse based on their size and manufacture.

That they eventually put rules to that, should be no surprise. The lore was really vague in alot of TROs and it didnt materialize in the TT for many years.

And theres no reason PGI cant look at that chart, and apply some willy nilly to mechs, and Paul can proclaim balance.

The size rules exist.

Our size rules are based on a number of factors but apparently the main one is "collisions". Which im still trying to figure out.

Edited by KraftySOT, 15 March 2015 - 08:38 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ultimatum X, on 15 March 2015 - 07:45 PM, said:

Hi there, Mr. Stawman, nice to meet you.


Did I say DoA? Or are you just resorting to dishonest tactics again?


Exposing less of your mech when you fire is important.

Was that easy enough for you this time?

I'm not the one using one facet of a mech and calling it the "important bit". But I will keep working to learn from the master of half truths and misdirection.

Burktross, on 15 March 2015 - 07:49 PM, said:

Though you're certainly correct, I figure Bishop is just busting your chops with the hyperbole

Can we not create a fight? Please?

I might be. Or I might just be using his own tactics and methods, in an albeit shortened manner. I don't need to make a 20 pt rebuttal where 1 will do.

I mean hey, folks wanna throw stones in glass houses and all.......

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 15 March 2015 - 08:42 PM.

[Lynx7725]

KraftySOT, on 15 March 2015 - 08:37 PM, said:

Sadly, it IS original source material because its source material put out by the people who own the ability to do that. So its canon. It hasnt been retroactively applied to everything because theres of course the matter of who owns alot of those TROs, and what has to be done to print them again.

Just how canon is Megamek? As a rule of thumb, I try not to use anything that is not direct source as a reference. <-- personal thing.

Yes, design quirks are canon, and as you said, not retroactively applied yet. But honestly, if we apply the design quirks as is, it's going to create even more problems.. I'd have to leave it to PGI to apply as, when and how they can. In certain cases, it's already built into the models, but others.. problematic.

And yes, you are right, the TRO does mention things like weak ankle actuators (Quickdraw, IIRC), bad hip bearings (Atlas).. These do have in game effect but are not implemented. From an immersion perspective, it'll be nice to see such things happening (at Atlas with a bad hip...), but to be honest, from a gameplay perspective some of the described items is going to suck. Which mech was it that had ammo feed linkage problems that could lead to an ammo ex again?

[XX Sulla XX]

Thanks for taking the time to figure out surface area. I think it will be a pretty good mech over all.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ultimatum X, on 15 March 2015 - 08:07 PM, said:

Once again, the important point.




Using that kind of hyperbole is basically being a liar.

I call people out on it when they are dishonest like that, because I go out of my way not to treat other posters like that.



However, for the sake of your thread that you clearly put a lot of effort into. I will leave it be.

Oh, the irony. Really? Pretty sure you were the one who took a comment and ran it into personal attacks. But whatever.

Before? I was running with it for some fun. Now? Wow...such self righteous twaddle.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 15 March 2015 - 08:47 PM.

[KraftySOT]

Lynx7725, on 15 March 2015 - 08:42 PM, said:

Just how canon is Megamek? As a rule of thumb, I try not to use anything that is not direct source as a reference. <-- personal thing.

Yes, design quirks are canon, and as you said, not retroactively applied yet. But honestly, if we apply the design quirks as is, it's going to create even more problems.. I'd have to leave it to PGI to apply as, when and how they can. In certain cases, it's already built into the models, but others.. problematic.

And yes, you are right, the TRO does mention things like weak ankle actuators (Quickdraw, IIRC), bad hip bearings (Atlas).. These do have in game effect but are not implemented. From an immersion perspective, it'll be nice to see such things happening (at Atlas with a bad hip...), but to be honest, from a gameplay perspective some of the described items is going to suck. Which mech was it that had ammo feed linkage problems that could lead to an ammo ex again?

The MAD right? Thought it was an issue with its head mounted AC with its crits in the RT. Which I think got more detailed rules around MaxTech (1999 or so).

And id say most people accept megamek is incredibly canon since it has such well labeled and such a large amount of option flags. You can play the era or company rules you always liked the most, while still having EVERYTHING EVER DONE in one place.

And theres a nifty "canon only" button to eliminate everything that isnt offically in a book somewhere.

And id love to see more of that kind of stuff in the game.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

Lynx7725, on 15 March 2015 - 08:11 PM, said:

Didn't say you hon.


A: Let's be honest here. FASA, and then Catty Lab (plus all the in-betweens), never even sorted out the "big/ small" issue. There's never, to my understanding, a firmed line that says Assaults have to be physically bigger than Heavies. They just have to be heavier. PGI by extension are not bound by that either, and only has to do it from a game balance perspective.


B: Any such thoughts that heavies have to be smaller than assaults is by our own projections. Calling it a scaling error is assuming you know the "correct" way to do things, which even the original designers never bothered with (for the obvious reason that Battlemechs just need to keep between IIRC 10 m and 20m tall? Come to think of it, I can call some of the lights too short...)

C: And I say again, give it time to demonstrate what it can do. The height "disadvantage" can be offset by other things that are in the performance and not in the pics so far. Whether it's fine or not can be discussed AFTER the mech comes out and people have a chance to play around in one.

A: Just because they are not bound by that does not mean they should have a free reign to continue such inconsistent practices.

B: Those projections are based off common sense and the "correct" way to do things is based on what is obvious for good and fair gameplay. Assault mechs are bigger and taller to fit more components into them to make them deadlier war machines. Why is a battlemech that is 30 tons lighter than a top end Assault mech going to be the same height and? No engineer (in a fictional universe or not) would dare do such a thing because it makes no bloody sense, his creation would be immediately rejected because it is grossly inefficient despite its Pros.

C: By all means lets give it time to show it could potentially end up like the Quickdraw or Catapult.

I'm sorry, I will not budge on this.

Maybe I've been too lenient and patient for PGI since I've only been apart of the community for a year now, but this entire scaling fiasco is completely and utterly unacceptable.

Edited by Sigilum Sanctum, 15 March 2015 - 08:59 PM.