105 replies to this topic

[Tennex]

FupDup, on 04 July 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

I'm going to have to comment that being tall does NOT help with hill poking. By that logic, Gargoyles and Atlases would be amazing at hill humping, while the tiny-sized Locusts and Jenners would be terrible at it. But in reality, it's the other way around.

IDK why ppl still think that. Size has absolutely 0 to do with height
Its probably the same people that think rescaling the perfectly scaled awesome will solve its proportion issues, when all it will do is create another mis scaled mech

Edited by Tennex, 04 July 2015 - 07:03 PM.

[Zordicron]

I want it rescaled, because I did not like how it was scaled to begin with. And that has nothing to do, nor did it ever, with performance.

It's just a little to leggy for me, not too much, but enough to make it feel off from what I expected. Secondly, the autocannons were always mounted ON TOP of the shoulder, atleast in every art I have ever seen. So when they stuck them IN the shoulder...ehhhh.....

However, I doubt they are remodeling the mech, just adjusting the "parts" to scale size. So, really, I have a hope the legs get shrunk just a little.

All of that is moot anyway, FFS the Trebuchet has been a giant since release, and it was never meta, or even that popular. I have no clue why that isnt everyone's number one to rescale. Without quirks the thing was extinct from the field.




The Shawk isn't "underperforming" not from scale, height, or quirks. it underperforms when people refuse to alter a loadout they had from over a year ago. The game is different, slow jumping sniper Shawks get eaten by faster mechs, bigger alphas, and much improved laser HSR that trivialized spanking that poptart while he was in the air out of cover.

I am going to write a modern guide for the chassis I think, soon. Maybe tonight. I have been messing with the chassis since the Grey Death weekend thing, loadout strategy for this chassis resembles nothing of the old style, at least for PUGS.

[Bishop Steiner]

LordBraxton, on 04 July 2015 - 04:58 PM, said:

1- Height is not an advantage. Just find smaller cover to peek over. Its easier to find shorter cover than taller cover.


2- Shadowhawk does not need a rescale, and even if it did it is SO far behind the long list of mechs that REALLY need a rescale I was shocked to see this even come up in discussion.

Actually, height can very much be an advantage. It all depends on your situational awareness.

Wintersdark, on 04 July 2015 - 05:01 PM, said:

Scaling should be consistent, but it's also extremely variable because mechs have such totally different shapes. They're modelled based on the concept art, and the concept art is based on the original drawings and models, which have sizes and shapes that are wholly stupid.


But here's the reality:

1) We have what we have.

2) Scaling is, in some cases, a critical aspect of balance. Well, rather, geometry is; scaling amplifies or minimizes geometry issues.

3) They're not rescaling everything, only 5 mechs. They MAY do more, but don't count on it. In my experience, these sorts of projects tend to peter out quick, so only the biggest offenders get fixed.

4) The Shadowhawk may be larger than it should be, but that in no way negatively affects it. It is, for all intents and purposes, and asthetic issue.

Given that there are mechs that have severe problems due to their scaling, that would be corrected by adjusting scaling, it stands to reason that we should focus on those mechs first.

Bingo Red Ryder, nailed it in one.

Chemie, on 04 July 2015 - 05:49 PM, said:

Shadowhawk being as tall as an Atlas makes no sense

makes perfect sense when it's still half it's width and volume.

FupDup, on 04 July 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

I'm going to have to comment that being tall does NOT help with hill poking. By that logic, Gargoyles and Atlases would be amazing at hill humping, while the tiny-sized Locusts and Jenners would be terrible at it. But in reality, it's the other way around.

A mech's ridge-humping effectiveness isn't about raw height, it's about the distance BETWEEN the hardpoints and the cockpit. The closer to the cockpit the mounts are, the better the poking ability. When hardpoints are located very far below the cockpit, that makes a mech crappy at hill-humping, no matter how tall or short the whole package is.

Hill poking and height being an advantage = two separate things. My Battlemasters and SHDs being able to fire over the top of buildings that other mechs can't is an advantage. Nothing to do with humping a sloped hill. Reading what is actually said, well, it helps.

[Tennex]

Wintersdark, on 04 July 2015 - 05:08 PM, said:

Some people can be reasonable adults and pick the mechs that actually have problems as a result of their size.

Look at the votes. People are clearly not voting to make their favourite mechs better, as the ones leading the pack are the ones with the most severe issues.

No. Priority to adjust scaling, because we can't "simply" rescale everything at once, must be assigned by need. Not by asthetics, but considering the mechs that suffer most from their size and shape.

The way to approach this is to be completely objective. Supporting any sort of balance argument as a reason for rescale will perpetuate the flawed logic, that somehow scale should be a variable in balance. Any misscaling should simply be equalized.

That being said, people are not objective and when given an equal choice they will pick the chasis that either they play the most or care about the most, or even simply the one that sits in the most people's mechbays.

But again, in a world where scale SHOULD NOT be a factor in balance, and we are simply fixing the problem of outliers, it makes absolutely no difference which of those are picked. Tho ideally all of them would be looked over.

If even one of them is picked to be rescaled, i think there is at least a good chance that it sets a precedence that in the future medium humanoids are not scaled to centurion/trebuchet/griffon/kintaro/shadowhawk

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 04 July 2015 - 06:26 PM, said:

Did someone say that height made a mech better at hill humping? I missed that.

No. Someone did not. Someone DID say height and high weapon mounts can actually be an advantage. But that someone made ZERO reference to hill humping.

[Tennex]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 July 2015 - 07:01 PM, said:

Hill poking and height being an advantage = two separate things. My Battlemasters and SHDs being able to fire over the top of buildings that other mechs can't is an advantage. Nothing to do with humping a sloped hill. Reading what is actually said, well, it helps.

I just want to set people straight about this, Since there seems to be a misconception forever now that being tall somehow makes a mech better at firing over things.

But the problem is its a two way street. If you are taller, it also means more people can shoot you over those things. IE you can hide under less things.

So in the long run, scale doesn't have too much impact on that either

[Bishop Steiner]

Tennex, on 04 July 2015 - 07:02 PM, said:

The way to approach this is to be completely objective. Supporting any sort of balance argument as a reason for rescale will perpetuate the flawed logic, that somehow scale should be a variable in balance. Any misscaling should simply be equalized.

That being said, people are not objective and when given an equal choice they will pick the chasis that either they play the most or care about the most, or even simply the one that sits in the most people's mechbays.

But again, in a world where scale SHOULD NOT be a factor in balance, and we are simply fixing the problem of outliers, it makes absolutely no difference which of those are picked. Tho ideally all of them would be looked over.

If even one of them is picked to be rescaled, i think there is at least a good chance that it sets a precedence that in the future medium humanoids are not scaled to centurion/trebuchet/griffon/kintaro/shadowhawk

Cool story bro.

You do know the difference between living in an "ideal world" and a "real world", right? MWO is not an ideal world. reality is, that because of poor scaling, scaling IS a balance factor. Since reality is that PGI has shown ZERO ability to correct that and get mechs right the first time, despite having it demonstrably rubbed in their faces for THREE YEARS, one must assume that even if they went back and fixed every mech, that new mechs would probably still be borked.

At the moment, the reality is because of PGIs bad scaling we do have mechs that are dramatically mis-scaled, and thus are bad. The Nova is one example. If enough mechs were done, all at the same time, your ideal world theorycrafting would make sense. But in the real world we have to deal with, there are mechs, because of the reality of poor scaling that have their in game balanced harmed by the extent of the scaling, and others that do not.

So this thread, and my own preference is to deal with the reality we have, instead of the idealistic world we would like.

[Tennex]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 July 2015 - 07:08 PM, said:

At the moment, the reality is because of PGIs bad scaling we do have mechs that are dramatically mis-scaled, and thus are bad.

Thats what i'm saying. We should only be fixing scale problems, not over compensating scale for the sake of balance. That will only create more mis scaled mech

Like I said, its not an ideal world and people are biased. But at least to me, and IMO to everybody balance shouldn't be the main driving factor

Edited by Tennex, 04 July 2015 - 07:14 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tennex, on 04 July 2015 - 07:09 PM, said:

Thats what i'm saying. We should only be fixing sacle problems, not over compensating scale for the sake of balance. That will only create more mis scaled mechs



Like I said, its not an ideal world and people are biased. But at least to me, and IMO to everybody balance shouldn't be the main driving factor

[Tennex]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 July 2015 - 07:13 PM, said:

I don't know what you are face palming about.



All that should matter is getting mechs onto this red line. I want to see mechs like the zeus and stalker scaled up too. Look how grossly underscaled the zeus is. But people are blind to that, because all they care about is how little their favorite mech should be.



Its not an ideal world, But at least we can get some of these mechs on the line. Just be happy about that. People's opinions should matter, and some of them have different ones which is why you arn't getting the exact mechs you wanted to be rescaled, rescaled.

Edited by Tennex, 05 July 2015 - 08:40 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tennex, on 04 July 2015 - 07:19 PM, said:

I don't know what you are face palming about.



All that should matter is getting mechs onto this red line. I want to see mechs like the zeus and stalker scaled up too. Look how grossly underscaled the zeus is. But people are blind to that, because all they care about is how little their favorite mech should be.



Its not an ideal world, But at least we can get some of these mechs on the line. Just be happy about that. People's opinions should matter, and some of them have different ones which is why you arn't getting the exact mechs you wanted to be rescaled, rescaled.

I'm facing palming the fortune cookie stuff you are all but cut and pasting on several topics. Since no one is talking about using overscaling to to what you said, it's just filler.

What PGI is doing and we are talking about is taking the mechs that are obviously balanced impinged BECAUSE OF PGIs POOR SCALING and fixing them. Period, nothing else.

[darqsyde]

I'm gonna hijack this thread and say that the Grasshopper fall into (mostly) the same boat.

The "It's too tall" argument is bulldroppings. The shoulder mounts on both the SHD and GHR are the point of the mechs. Making the GHR and SHD any shorter would seriously nerf the mech.

Both the SHD and GHR are tall, but they are also relatively slender and narrow. I'd rather be tall, slender and narrow than short, and wide/deep. Think about how easy it is to hit a CPLT, STK, EBJ, TBR from the side.

As a bonus, the GHR can use a CPLT for cover and still shoot over it....."Here Kitty, kitty."

Edited by darqsyde, 04 July 2015 - 07:32 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

darqsyde, on 04 July 2015 - 07:31 PM, said:

I'm gonna hijack this thread and say that the Grasshopper fall into (mostly) the same boat.

The "It's too tall" argument is bulldroppings. The shoulder mounts on both the SHD and GHR are the point of the mechs. Making the GHR and SHD any shorter would seriously nerf the mech.

Both the SHD and GHR are tall, but they are also relatively slender and narrow. I'd rather be tall, slender and narrow than short, and wide/deep. Think about how easy it is to hit a CPLT, STK, EBJ, TBR from the side.

As a bonus, the GHR can use a CPLT for cover and still shoot over it....."Here Kitty, kitty."

yeah people also seem to overlook that taller mechs can shoot over shorter mechs, instead of INTO them...but given how much FF this game sees, that is probably an alien idea.

[Tennex]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 July 2015 - 07:29 PM, said:

I'm facing palming the fortune cookie stuff you are all but cut and pasting on several topics. Since no one is talking about using overscaling to to what you said, it's just filler.

I keep saying it, because as a collective the people are always going to just scale down mechs lol and then ignore the small ones that need to be scaled up. Logic would say that if that keeps happening we get mechs the size of trolls. But i hope at least once we get the taller mechs, we can at least look at these smaller ones.

Nobody is consciously doing it, its just a trend. Like power creep, where everybody just wants things bigger and badder. They want their mechs smaller, and harder to hit.

Edited by Tennex, 04 July 2015 - 07:36 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tennex, on 04 July 2015 - 07:34 PM, said:

I keep saying it, because as a collective the people are always going to just scale down mechs lol. Logic would say that if that keeps happening we get mechs the size of trolls. But i hope at least once we get the taller mechs, we can at least look at these smaller ones.

Nobody is consciously doing it, its just a trend. Like power creep, where everybody just wants things bigger and badder. They want their mechs smaller, and harder to hit.

then instead of hijacking every other topic, how about you make your own nice one on the subject, with all the charts and graphs and such? It's what I tend to do when I notice myself in said situation.

[Thorqemada]

While i totaly agree that the Shadow Hawk is not in the favourite position for rescaling it for sure is to tall and mis-sized as many other Mechs in our MWO 3D Environment.
A sensible rescaling when ressources appear free for that would find my sympathy.
As it has Jumpjets a reduced height would not hamper its performance.

But it is way back in the rescaling-line...

Edited by Thorqemada, 04 July 2015 - 07:55 PM.

[Jack Corban]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 July 2015 - 02:04 PM, said:

Because it's fall from grace has exactly ZERO to do with size. It was the same size when it WAS the Medium Meta.

It has to do with 2 factors, neither of which rescaling will help:
1) StormCrow
2) Quirks

Stormcrow took it's lunch money as the unchallenged Medium MetaKing. Period. End of story. But because of the SHDs previous position in the food chain, when Quirks were handed out, it got jack crap, whilst almost everything around it got at least something over quirked to allow them to at least be super effective specialists.

Scaling? Not even an issue, and in fact, it's height is in fact very useful when combined with those shoulder hardpoints. That Height allows it to shoot over things and teammates that a shorter Shawk could not.

The mech is a fantastic generalist, with one of the tankiest hitboxes in the game....handicapped by this game being dominated by specialists.

If your concern is returning the SHD back to tier 1 glory, could we focus on the actual problems?

Which come down to quirks, not scale. As Quirks currently stand, the SHD simply needs to be better quirked. Or, a better thing for the game in general, is in this upcoming "global balance change" that PGI is claiming, that Nerfs in general get turned back. WAY back.

Anyhow, vote as you choose, but just understand what you are actually trying to accomplish and voting for. Resizing the Shadowhawk really won't do a dang thing to help it.

Cheers.

As with many things you lately discuss completly uneccessary debate. The Mechs getting rescales now are not the only ones to get rescaled they are the first so calm your **** and wait.

[Bishop Steiner]

Thorqemada, on 04 July 2015 - 07:42 PM, said:

As it has Jumpjets a reduced height would not hamper its performance.

But it is way back in the rescaling-line...

hmm,. so now i have to potart for shots I coul dmake before with steady aim, and in high volume? Pass, lol.

[Andi Nagasia]

i dont think any Mech, will be Scaled down or up more than 5%,
maybe 10% but that i think is very unlikely, with how much 5% will change,

[Bishop Steiner]

Jack Corban, on 04 July 2015 - 07:43 PM, said:

As with many things you lately discuss completly uneccessary debate. The Mechs getting rescales now are not the only ones to get rescaled they are the first so calm your **** and wait.

Calm your own ***. Or park on someone else's topic if you feel the need to act like a dbag. Whether you feel it's necessary or not (and your point is not verified, either) is handled rather simply. Don't like it, don't be here.

But I do like the new you, freed from constraints of so called respect. Welcome to my ignore list.

Andi Nagasia, on 04 July 2015 - 07:45 PM, said:

i dont think any Mech, will be Scaled down or up more than 5%,
maybe 10% but that i think is very unlikely, with how much 5% will change,

truth is we have ZERO input on how much or even how the rescaling is going to be handled. I'm guessing at blanket rescales because it would probably take less effort than resizing specific parts of the mech, etc, and PGI tends to be hit and miss on how much effort they want to put into "fixes".

But we don't honestly know how they will go about it, and if it's the "first wave" or a one time thing.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 04 July 2015 - 07:48 PM.