162 replies to this topic

[Carrioncrows]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 July 2015 - 01:24 PM, said:

because I run Awesomes, Catapults and KitFoxes soooooo often.

And those same biased dirty Clanners who are pushing the Clan agenda on the Nova apparently also are voting for those dirty clan...:AWesomes, Quickdraws and Catapults?

Seeing the flaw in your theory yet, dude? If it were as you imagine we'd be seeing the Mad Dog and Warhawk (possibly Gargles, but doubtful) getting all the rescale votes. Yet no Clan Assault or Heavy are even in the running.

Yes, some people are voting with their heart, not their heads. But no, the leading candidates in every category are shockingly enough.....the right ones.

And no, the Nova does not have enough sustainable firepower to compensate for pretty much literally the worst hitboxes in the game. Not that there is a whole lot that can be done about that part without a redesign.

Not sure why it's so hard to believe that...the Nova just really needs to be rescaled. It's only as wide as a Direwolf and all. With "pickyourpoison" Hitboxes that only are exacerbated by the size...since you can pretty much choose whichever component you want, from any angle.

The "meta influenced" choice I can see is the Shadowhawk..... since TBH, it's height has had ZERO impact on it's in game durability and actually make the shoulder mounts more useful for peeking. In this current overquirked game, it needs to be upquirked (or better yet in the next balance pass, quirks in general will get significantly reduced) but that it or the Centy need rescaling more than the Trebbie? THAT is nonsense.

I don't claim to be perfect or that my theories are perfect.

I only lay claim to what I like and why. Hell I am lucky if I play 4 hrs a week anymore. Most of this is due to school sure, but I am a 3025 nut. I could given't give a fly'n fruitcake about clan stuff. I bought the clan packs because I thought "Maybe this time will be different". Nope. and NOPE.

So yes all those dirty clanners voting for the awesome is the exact same situation just in reverse.

Noble of them, but they are doing themselves a disservice by voting for IS mechs instead of trying to get their own clan mechs fixed.

It is a disservice and why the polls should be separated for IS and clan.

So yes it is pure self interest and bias. Why in the world would I want to fix the aspects of a game I don't enjoy and am not interested in playing and ignore fixing the aspects that I moderately enjoy. The parts I throw money at to enjoy.

Mmm...I love you guys but I am not that selfless when it comes to my entertainment.

So you are probably right...but at the same time. I am not wrong, I am just honest about it.

[Gorgo7]

All Mediums need a re-scale, some are worse then others but all require it. All are too large.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gorgo7, on 05 July 2015 - 01:26 PM, said:

All Mediums need a re-scale, some are worse then others but all require it. All are too large.

actually, BJ and HBK are pretty much fine as is.

The rest.... well, yeah. Though by varying degrees. The Ice Ferret I need to check on, but the CDC is barely oversized. Regardless, priority should go to those that are actually being affected gameplay-wise, and not just aesthetically. That should just be common sense, I would hope.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 July 2015 - 01:36 PM, said:

actually, BJ and HBK are pretty much fine as is.

The Blackjack is right where I want the Vindicator in terms of scale.

[Bloodweaver]

IraqiWalker, on 04 July 2015 - 05:25 AM, said:

In-game poses are what really matters here.

No, they're not what matters here. The question is whether or not the DWF is "thicker and stockier" than the KGC, which was Bishop's statement. Arm position does not affect a 'Mech's volume.

Edited by Bloodweaver, 05 July 2015 - 09:50 PM.

[Bloodweaver]

Axeface, on 04 July 2015 - 09:24 AM, said:

I actually think making the cent thinner will negatively effect it's potential. When a cent is in your face with an AC20, it's wideness is a good thing.

How? How does the Centurion being extra-wide make it more powerful when it's in your face?

[Bloodweaver]

Carrioncrows, on 05 July 2015 - 01:12 PM, said:

I don't claim to be perfect or that my theories are perfect.

I only lay claim to what I like and why. Hell I am lucky if I play 4 hrs a week anymore. Most of this is due to school sure, but I am a 3025 nut. I could given't give a fly'n fruitcake about clan stuff. I bought the clan packs because I thought "Maybe this time will be different". Nope. and NOPE.

So yes all those dirty clanners voting for the awesome is the exact same situation just in reverse.

Noble of them, but they are doing themselves a disservice by voting for IS mechs instead of trying to get their own clan mechs fixed.

It is a disservice and why the polls should be separated for IS and clan.

So yes it is pure self interest and bias. Why in the world would I want to fix the aspects of a game I don't enjoy and am not interested in playing and ignore fixing the aspects that I moderately enjoy. The parts I throw money at to enjoy.

Mmm...I love you guys but I am not that selfless when it comes to my entertainment.

So you are probably right...but at the same time. I am not wrong, I am just honest about it.

'Mechs is 'Mechs. Inner Sphere, Clan, doesn't matter. All factions are available to all players, so all 'Mech's affect all players. Nova is as much of an outlier as Awesome is insofar as egregiously mis-sized proportions go. Trebuchets are a very close second place. Clan players are "doing themselves a disservice by voting for IS mechs instead of trying to get their own clan mechs fixed"? Are you high???

[627]

lol, looking at the medium poll, the trench bucket will lose because of the shadowhawk and nova...

[aniviron]

Juodas Varnas, on 04 July 2015 - 12:09 AM, said:

P.S.
I voted for the Kit Fox and Raven for lights ( i don't pilot either of them, but they're obviously too large. And if Raven gets decreased in size, it might not need so many quirks )

Raven is fine in terms of model size. The leg hitboxes were artificially inflated to about twice their normal size years ago in beta though, because the netcode was really bad back then. The netcode got better, and the leg hitboxes were never changed back. Fix that and it will be fine.

[ShadowSpirit]

Yeah, the fricken Kintaro is as big as a damn Grasshopper.

[Master Pain]

I hope they dont just stop at 5 mechs. There are a good 5 medium mechs that need to be scaled down. thats not even counting the kitfox, catapult, quickdraw, and awesome in the other classes that need to be resized. As a group, the medium mechs are rather poorly scaled. They play like under-armored and under-gunned heavy mechs.

[IraqiWalker]

Master Pain, on 06 July 2015 - 01:25 AM, said:

I hope they dont just stop at 5 mechs. There are a good 5 medium mechs that need to be scaled down. thats not even counting the kitfox, catapult, quickdraw, and awesome in the other classes that need to be resized. As a group, the medium mechs are rather poorly scaled. They play like under-armored and under-gunned heavy mechs.

I hope so too.

They did say that these were the first five mechs to get worked on.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Catapult needs it bad. Please think of the Kitties... Please.

[Rogue Jedi]

a lot of people seem to be confusing height for size, a lot of the so called worst offenders for being too big are complained about because they are as tall as the Atlas, but are tall and thin, where as the Atlas is short and stocky, with regards to the Cent and Hunchie , the Hunchy is short and stocky (or heavily built of you prefer) while the Cent is tall and thin, hence the Hunchback is shorter but easier to hit, while the Centurian is easier to see but harder to hit.

the Awesome is constantly put forth as one of the worst scaled Mechs but it is not far out at all, it is reasonably tall and quite wide, but side on it is really thin, so again this is not a scaling issue but rather an issue with the model, it has a small profile from the side so try to stay side on to the enemy

[MeiSooHaityu]

Rogue Jedi, on 06 July 2015 - 04:16 AM, said:

a lot of people seem to be confusing height for size, a lot of the so called worst offenders for being too big are complained about because they are as tall as the Atlas, but are tall and thin, where as the Atlas is short and stocky, with regards to the Cent and Hunchie , the Hunchy is short and stocky (or heavily built of you prefer) while the Cent is tall and thin, hence the Hunchback is shorter but easier to hit, while the Centurian is easier to see but harder to hit.

the Awesome is constantly put forth as one of the worst scaled Mechs but it is not far out at all, it is reasonably tall and quite wide, but side on it is really thin, so again this is not a scaling issue but rather an issue with the model, it has a small profile from the side so try to stay side on to the enemy

There is truth to that too.

That is why the worst offender in the Heavy class is the Catapult. The Catapult isn't tall per se, but it is very large in the torso. It is a mech with as much girth as a Stalker and yet the Catapult is a moderate to light Heavy mech.

The Catapult should be closer in size to the similar designed (chicken walker / aircraft fusealge torso) 65 ton Ebon Jaguar and not the same size as an Assault Stalker

[Bishop Steiner]

627, on 05 July 2015 - 11:19 PM, said:

lol, looking at the medium poll, the trench bucket will lose because of the shadowhawk and nova...

627, on 05 July 2015 - 11:19 PM, said:

lol, looking at the medium poll, the trench bucket will lose because of the shadowhawk and nova...

Hey, Trench needs it, so does the the Nova. In fact, for rescaling, the Nova needs it worse. The Trebbie needs a better Meta and Quirks even more than it needs rescaling.

The Shad? Yeah, that one is just stupid. Shouldn't even be an option because it's scaling is zero detriment to it's toughness in game.

[Paigan]

Bishop Steiner, on 06 July 2015 - 04:35 AM, said:

Hey, Trench needs it, so does the the Nova. In fact, for rescaling, the Nova needs it worse. The Trebbie needs a better Meta and Quirks even more than it needs rescaling.

The Shad? Yeah, that one is just stupid. Shouldn't even be an option because it's scaling is zero detriment to it's toughness in game.

Trench Trebbi Shad...
... must ... use .. abreviations ... cannot ... use ... proper names.

Or should I say: got2abrkkthx

[IraqiWalker]

Paigan, on 06 July 2015 - 04:40 AM, said:

Trench Trebbi Shad...
... must ... use .. abreviations ... cannot ... use ... proper names.

Or should I say: got2abrkkthx

Most common method of referring to mechs on these forums is usually with abbreviations, or nicknames.

[Bishop Steiner]

Paigan, on 06 July 2015 - 04:40 AM, said:

Trench Trebbi Shad...
... must ... use .. abreviations ... cannot ... use ... proper names.

Or should I say: got2abrkkthx

you'll get over it.

[Sjorpha]

Axeface, on 03 July 2015 - 07:45 PM, said:

I said it on one of the polls.... why is this going ot a vote at all? PGI should be able to set fair scaling rules and balance the game. I just dont understand why they need to vote on it. Some mechs dont need rescaling, in fact only a few specific ones do, so why are all mechs up to choose from?

"This isn't the rutting town hall" - PGI are the devs here, not the consumers. This isn't early access or beta. PGI should be able to trust their own judgement.

Picking the map that gets remade first is cool, because that doesnt directly effect game balance - this vote boggles the mind.

This, why can't PGI simply make a scaling algorithm based on the volume of the 3d model?

That would be consistent and something that could be explained to the community: "This is how it works..."

And if that makes lights and mediums feel too big, which it probably would as the light mechs are crazy small right now and people would go nuts if they were upscaled to realistic proportions, they could just assume progressively higher density as mechs get lighter.

I think the answer is that PGI is afraid people would still complain because they don't actually understand scaling, and just look at a tall mech and thinks "ZOMG!!11!WTF!! TOO BIG!", So instead of scaling that makes realistic sense they are going for trying to ask how the community feels about scale and go from that. But that is a very inconsistent and unsustainable approach.

A good example is the grasshopper, I believe a volume based scaling algorithm would most likely NOT make it shorter given how slim it is. But people only see the height and go bananas. Never mind that it has a super slim body and tanks like a boss. My guess is that it is really the sluggishness of the mech that people get frustrated with, if it was as agile as it should be most complaints about height would go away.

If someone has a good handle on 3d and extracting MWO models, it would be awesome to see examples of scaling by volume, so that people can see how much more thickness and shape matters than just height and width.

As a general rule, in reality, given equal density, you have to increase weight by 8x to gain a 2x increase in height. So a mech that weighs 80 tons would only be twice as tall as a comparably designed mech that weighs 10 tons. The atlas is only 4x the weight of a commando, so realistically it shouldn't be more than 1.5x the height unless the commando is significantly more compact (which it might very well be), and the height difference between 70 and 100 tons should usually be very small with a slimmer 70 tonner often even being taller than a fat 100 tonner.

My feeling sometimes when people here talks about scale is that they assume tonnage should translate almost 1:1 to height difference regardless of shape and thickness, so that a grasshopper for example should be 0.7x the height of an atlas, which is totally nuts and nothing PGI can work with. Again, the realistic approach would be that tonnage difference translates to a 1/8 difference in height given similar thickness.

Realistically, a 70 ton mech would be 100% - 30/8% = 96.25% the height of a 100 ton mech, think about that for a moment before commenting on scale again.

Edited by Sjorpha, 06 July 2015 - 05:17 AM.