105 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 05 July 2015 - 08:49 AM, said:

Exactly. The shadow hawk is tall, but it is purely an aesthetic issue, making it shorter won't make it better. Nobody misses high; even while sniping. I can't recall a time I've ever missed high.

Even if people love the Shadowhawk and want it to be better, this isn't the way to do it. So Im left wondering:


Are these people voting Shadowhawk seriously so concerned about aesthetics that they'd leave mechs that are actually harmed by their size not fixed (say, the Nova, or Trebuchet) to fix a minor aesthetic issue,

*or*

Are they really that ignorant?

Because we DON'T know that every mech will get looked at, and odds are they won't.

sadly, there appears to be a mixture of the two.... those who are purely concerned with how their pet mech "looks" (really stupid since you can't see it in battle..unless you run around in 3pV like nub) and those so myopic and desperate they'll cling to anything like scaling thinking it will make it better.

It's one of the biggest issues I have with a lot of suggestions on the forums, too many people cannot think ahead at all, or see how things interact, and cling to extremely myopic solutions which either don't fix the actual problem, or do so in such a way as to open up a host of new ones.

[Wintersdark]

therealswilly, on 05 July 2015 - 08:57 AM, said:

The rescaling is needed, but as an Orion pilot, hitboxes need a change as well.

Please try to understand, everybody knows there are all sorts of problems.

But this thread? This issue? It's about scaling, on the Shadowhawk in particular. The only relevance the Orion has here is potentially in comparing the scaling of the two. Hitboxes are totally irrelevant for this thread.

[Gyrok]

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.

The majority of the issues it has do not stem from size bishop...however...I would like to point out to you that ALL MEDIUMS are scaled improperly...the Nova, Shawk, Cent, and Treb just tend to be the worst offenders...and honestly...the SCR is on the large side of things in terms of scale as well...

The resizing should help ALL mediums across the board to become more in line with other mech classes, and should improve the game play, survivability, and competitiveness of medium mechs in general.

[therealswilly]

Wintersdark, on 05 July 2015 - 09:07 AM, said:

Please try to understand, everybody knows there are all sorts of problems.

But this thread? This issue? It's about scaling, on the Shadowhawk in particular. The only relevance the Orion has here is potentially in comparing the scaling of the two. Hitboxes are totally irrelevant for this thread.

Sorry, didn't mean to bring it up.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gyrok, on 05 July 2015 - 09:31 AM, said:

The majority of the issues it has do not stem from size bishop...however...I would like to point out to you that ALL MEDIUMS are scaled improperly...the Nova, Shawk, Cent, and Treb just tend to be the worst offenders...and honestly...the SCR is on the large side of things in terms of scale as well...

The resizing should help ALL mediums across the board to become more in line with other mech classes, and should improve the game play, survivability, and competitiveness of medium mechs in general.

Indded, that is correct.

ATM though, we are dealing with a limited number of mechs being selected. And even if ALL were on the agenda (which we have no confirmation will be the case) one would logically start with the ones that actually NEED it for other than aesthetic reasons, first, then work your way down. The SHD, TBH, is very low on the list.

And I would love to see it's volume compared to the Atlas. Because I have a feeling it's close to "correct" than people care to admit. Well, correct, ignoring the fact that the Atlas is 3-4 meters taller than it should be, by canon.

According to CBT Line Developer, Herb Beas, at CGL, shortest is 8 meters (Locust, Urbanmech) tallest is 14 (Banshee, Executioner). The Atlas was never the tallest, despite idiotic claims to the contrary, because it's so dang stocky and wide. 12-12.5 is where it should reside. Tall, thin humanoids Mediums, like the SHD, GRF, would indeed be much closer in height to the Atlas, since they are about half it's width.

therealswilly, on 05 July 2015 - 09:36 AM, said:

Sorry, didn't mean to bring it up.

Am curious if what we get is simply rescaling (which is needed in many cases) or if in some case, individual components will get rescaled, with attendant hitbox improvements. I doubt the latter, as I believe it would involve more work, but that is what is needed for the Orion, Awesome, Dragon, etc. Simple rescaling, sadly will not fix their woes, just as they won't fix the SHD, but for different reasons (Quirks).

I would, indeed love to see them also work on your area of concern, though.

[kapusta11]

And here I thought the downfall of Shadowhawk was caused by PPC velocity nerf and massive desync with Gauss rifle as the result. Ah well, going back to my underhive cave.

Edited by kapusta11, 05 July 2015 - 09:49 AM.

[Hit the Deck]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 July 2015 - 09:03 AM, said:

sadly, there appears to be a mixture of the two.... those who are purely concerned with how their pet mech "looks" (really stupid since you can't see it in battle..unless you run around in 3pV like nub)....

Did you forget those threads you make about certain 'Mechs' "aesthetic issue"?

Aesthetic is also an important factor for the game and for sure people can vote for it. Personally, I can't play my Legendary (L) Cent because it looks bad compared to the concept art.

[Gyrok]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 July 2015 - 09:39 AM, said:

Indded, that is correct.

ATM though, we are dealing with a limited number of mechs being selected. And even if ALL were on the agenda (which we have no confirmation will be the case) one would logically start with the ones that actually NEED it for other than aesthetic reasons, first, then work your way down. The SHD, TBH, is very low on the list.

And I would love to see it's volume compared to the Atlas. Because I have a feeling it's close to "correct" than people care to admit. Well, correct, ignoring the fact that the Atlas is 3-4 meters taller than it should be, by canon.

This shows size by pixel volume from frontal view...you can see the line for normalization from the LCT to the AS7.

https://s3-ap-southe...yDecreasing.png

The worst offenders are actually the following:

KFX, ADR, RVN, every mech from the CDA to the EBJ is overscaled, CPT and SMN are overscaled, The VTR/AWS/GAR are all too big and the ZEU is too small.

[Bishop Steiner]

Hit the Deck, on 05 July 2015 - 09:50 AM, said:

Did you forget those threads you make about certain 'Mechs' "aesthetic issue"?

Aesthetic is also an important factor for the game and for sure people can vote for it. Personally, I can't play my Legendary (L) Cent because it looks bad compared to the concept art.

absolutely have not forgotten. Would point out the two are completely and utterly unrelated. We have a poll on rescaling to FIX MECHS now, with a "top 5" so to speak, vs me making commentary about the various issues as it happened (commentary, which along with other similar commentary probably led to stuff like this).

Apples and oranges bro. Plain and simple-.

I love my mechs to look good. But I don't confuse that with game play issues.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 05 July 2015 - 11:02 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gyrok, on 05 July 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:

This shows size by pixel volume from frontal view...you can see the line for normalization from the LCT to the AS7.

https://s3-ap-southe...yDecreasing.png

The worst offenders are actually the following:

KFX, ADR, RVN, every mech from the CDA to the EBJ is overscaled, CPT and SMN are overscaled, The VTR/AWS/GAR are all too big and the ZEU is too small.

front view does not give the total story, nor side. Neither for instance show how slender the "beak" of the Raven tapers too. It's much less oversized than people think. Hunchback is actually about perfectly sized, as is the Jenner, when you bring all 3 dimensions into account. LCTand SPD are all too small, by varying degrees. Cicada is arguably a little large, Blackjack is about perfect, etc.

Not my first rodeo on volume with these mechs. As noted, Adridos (I think) had actually extrapolated total volume by polygon back in the day, which set a real nice baseline, and was actually the basis of the silhouette chart I first made

http://i290.photobuc...zps055e8bc1.jpg

mind you this is what was in game in January 2013. But the basics remain the same.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 05 July 2015 - 11:16 AM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

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

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

Aye, and on top of that I like the tall mechs because it means I can stand behind the shorter ones and use them as shields while I shoot over top of them. *muahahahah!*
Actually you had mentioned something about mechs raising their arms, and that'd be a great way to allow mechs that are in the back of the line to allow players to shoot over the mechs in front. Because right now, if you have low weapons and there's a mech in front of you, you're basically useless. You have all that firepower but can't fire a single shot simply because some one is in the path of your shots.

It's a good feeling not having to veer your weapons aside to avoid the light mech (or some mediums) who scooted in front of your shot. The shadow hawk is one of those mechs, and I wonder if people forget about this wonderful thing.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 05 July 2015 - 12:06 PM.

[Gyrok]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 July 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:

front view does not give the total story, nor side. Neither for instance show how slender the "beak" of the Raven tapers too. It's much less oversized than people think. Hunchback is actually about perfectly sized, as is the Jenner, when you bring all 3 dimensions into account. LCTand SPD are all too small, by varying degrees. Cicada is arguably a little large, Blackjack is about perfect, etc.

Not my first rodeo on volume with these mechs. As noted, Adridos (I think) had actually extrapolated total volume by polygon back in the day, which set a real nice baseline, and was actually the basis of the silhouette chart I first made

http://i290.photobuc...zps055e8bc1.jpg

mind you this is what was in game in January 2013. But the basics remain the same.

Agreed on the point of single view, however, the rest of the reddit thread here: https://www.reddit.c...ia_pixel_count/

Manages to discuss in detail the total pixel volume of the given mechs, and the chart I showed you gives you a baseline for that.

To note...the CPT is significantly out of line without the VCRs of doom...with them, it is almost 80% of the pixel volume of an atlas (i.e. it is another huge mech that should be smaller)...the QKD is also a big time offender, having pixel volume just shy of the VTR, which is also too big...

[Hit the Deck]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 July 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

absolutely have not forgotten. Would point out the two are completely and utterly unrelated. We have a poll on rescaling to FIX MECHS now, with a "top 5" so to speak, vs me making commentary about the various issues as it happened (commentary, which along with other similar commentary probably led to stuff like this).

Apples and oranges bro. Plain and simple-.

I love my mechs to look good. But I don't confuse that with game play issues.

Okay, it's fair enough if we look this purely from gameplay perspective.

I just really want to drive the Cent I have (it's so wide it looks fat) so I voted for it instead of Nova.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 05 July 2015 - 12:28 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Hit the Deck, on 05 July 2015 - 12:27 PM, said:

Okay, it's fair enough if we look this purely from gameplay perspective.

I just really want to drive the Cent I have (it's so wide it looks fat) so I voted for it instead of Nova.

won't fix the arm, though. We are talking about rescaling, not redesigning, at least as far as I know.

kapusta11, on 05 July 2015 - 09:48 AM, said:

And here I thought the downfall of Shadowhawk was caused by PPC velocity nerf and massive desync with Gauss rifle as the result. Ah well, going back to my underhive cave.

yes, because all SHDs were ppc/gauss poptarts.....oh wait..they weren't?!?!?!

As with all things, it's usually a combo of scenarios. But SHDs were still the goto Medium after poptarting fell apart.

Wow, just noticed how much nicer and cleaner my thread looks......*sniff* even smells better. Huh. Me likey.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 05 July 2015 - 12:47 PM.

[Pjwned]

Tennex, on 05 July 2015 - 07:38 AM, said:

I wholeheartidly disagree with that. The whole point of quirks is to serve to add another tuning variable in balancing. Given that many things are constant; engine speed per tonnage, and ideally mech scale.

If there are too many variables and too many levers to press, balance is going to be a cluster **** and the developers have no way to know whether the balance problem is due to variable A, Variable B - X or because of improper scaling.

I guess what I'm saying here is I don't think it's ideal that mechs like the Awesome have absolutely terrible scaling and they have insane quirks to make up for it, and also that small scaling adjustments can be used in less extreme cases too.

I'm not saying that the size of mechs should constantly change though by any means, and I still say that mechs should generally be scaled in a linear fashion, but if for example you have a mech with legs that are a bit too big then why not just make them smaller rather than give the mech huge armor quirks for the legs?

I'm not saying quirks should be avoided completely (though I do dislike the current state of quirks generally) and I do agree they're a good balancing tool in theory, but if there's a more organic change (like mech scaling) that can be used instead of quirks, then that should be done instead I think; this is especially true with the huge balance pass for mechs coming at some point, which is the perfect time to double down and think "is this mech scaled well or should we change it a bit."

Edited by Pjwned, 05 July 2015 - 12:58 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Pjwned, on 05 July 2015 - 12:57 PM, said:

I guess what I'm saying here is I don't think it's ideal that mechs like the Awesome have absolutely terrible scaling and they have insane quirks to make up for it, and also that small scaling adjustments can be used in less extreme cases too.

I'm not saying that the size of mechs should constantly change though by any means, and I still say that mechs should generally be scaled in a linear fashion, but if for example you have a mech with legs that are a bit too big then why not just make them smaller rather than give the mech huge armor quirks for the legs?

I'm not saying quirks should be avoided completely (though I do dislike the current state of quirks generally) and I do agree they're a good balancing tool in theory, but if there's a more organic change (like mech scaling) that can be used instead of quirks, then that should be done instead I think; this is especially true with the huge balance pass for mechs coming at some point, which is the perfect time to double down and think "is this mech scaled well or should we change it a bit."

Thing is..the Awesome doesn't have terrible scaling. The scale ain't bad.

It has bad geometry and proportions, and thus, hitboxes.

I think one huge issue with the rescaling polls is too many people are confusing the two things. Rescaling a mech, or the need to rescale or even redesign individual components of a mech.

[Gorgo7]

Frankly, I am of the opinion that if the Awesome is voted to be rescaled the Dev's will indeed change the Proportions.
Make no mistake, they will understand implicitly what is being asked for.
Yes the scaling is fine but the geometry is shitte.
I for one (and many others as well) are not confused with the "scaling" we want the damn things fixed and if this is the only way to do it then push forward and vote for the Awesome!

VOTE FOR THE AWESOME!

[Bishop Steiner]

Gorgo7, on 05 July 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

Frankly, I am of the opinion that if the Awesome is voted to be rescaled the Dev's will indeed change the Proportions.
Make no mistake, they will understand implicitly what is being asked for.
Yes the scaling is fine but the geometry is shitte.
I for one (and many others as well) are not confused with the "scaling" we want the damn things fixed and if this is the only way to do it then push forward and vote for the Awesome!

VOTE FOR THE AWESOME!

You might get the difference but by the very wording of many posts, no, most people don't seem to get the difference.

[Bloodweaver]

Gyrok brings up a very solid example to his point by mentioning the Stormcrow. People shouldn't vote just for what could be justifiably resized based on aesthetics. In a perfect world, with a more capable developer, sure. Not in this case. They should be voting for aesthetically obscene 'Mechs whose ugliness actually impacts their performance. As he said, the Stormcrow is actually a bit OVERsized for its weight. All things being equal, it should be shrunk to be brought in line with the standard weight-volume ratios. But that is completely unnecessary since it is already such a strong contender, and since hitbox viabilities between 'Mechs are not equal. "Could" and "should" are not the same thing in this case. And every time I see the SHD's placement in the medium 'Mech polling options, I pull a I mean, how can anyone think that 'Mech has bad (for its performance) sizing and/or hitboxes???

Gyrok, on 05 July 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:

This shows size by pixel volume from frontal view...you can see the line for normalization from the LCT to the AS7.

https://s3-ap-southe...yDecreasing.png

The worst offenders are actually the following:

KFX, ADR, RVN, every mech from the CDA to the EBJ is overscaled, CPT and SMN are overscaled, The VTR/AWS/GAR are all too big and the ZEU is too small.

Wow, pretty cool. It doesn't just show pixel volume by front view though - it averages front and side views. Most of it seems accurate (dat Nova bar) but there are a couple of examples that make me suspicious of its overall accuracy. The Grasshopper shows it to be well below the line, which can't be right - I never found it to be enormous, as many do. I do think it could be a bit skinnier, but that's it. But even I couldn't ever imagine anyone saying it's that far below the "average" 70-tonner size.

The other issue is the similar bar heights for the Dragon and Quickdraw. Granted, the Dragon has that huge CT nose - but the Quickdraw is fat all over. No way that they're almost equal in overall surface area. So the chart seems mostly spot-on, but there are at least a couple of misses.

Bishop Steiner, on 05 July 2015 - 01:14 PM, said:

Thing is..the Awesome doesn't have terrible scaling. The scale ain't bad.

It has bad geometry and proportions, and thus, hitboxes.

I think one huge issue with the rescaling polls is too many people are confusing the two things. Rescaling a mech, or the need to rescale or even redesign individual components of a mech.

Like Gorgo7 said, you can only work with what you're given. It's not confusion so much as desperation. You only have two options. You either put in a vote for "rescaling," with the hope it will either 1) lead to more pertinent fixes or 2) only be rescaled, but the rescaling helps a bit anyway - or you don't vote at all, and thus guarantee that absolutely nothing will happen. An unlikely effort still has a drastically higher chance of succeeding than a complete lack of effort does.

[Navy Sixes]

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

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.

"I think the Blackjack would be a better mech if it were scaled as tall as a Battlemaster," said no one ever.