64 replies to this topic

[cazidin]

MeiSooHaityu, on 22 February 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

Butter Bee has 4 missile hard points.

Thank you.

[Cabusha]

I recall that even after the vote, they stated the rescale wouldn't happen until after the IIC release. In the time between though, they went hog-happy for the Unseen release and the dough that generated. Pretty much guarantee that diverted the resources for the rescale until that cow was properly milked.

[Bishop Steiner]

Trainee, on 22 February 2016 - 03:07 PM, said:

Some of us simply settle for facts and honesty. Choosing send respect? You guys should try that by admitting your were wrong and have no clue what you're talking about.

But you won't.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 22 February 2016 - 04:25 PM.

[Pjwned]

Khobai, on 22 February 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

honestly the game has more pressing issues than the nova needing a rescale.

like the fact that Clan/IS balance and CW are in shambles... IMO thats what PGI needs to be working on for a late march or early april release: Better Clan/IS balance and CW phase 3. So yeah its easy to see why rescaling the nova is low priority.

That's part of the process of rebalancing things though, a mech like the Nova is too big so it gets scaled down to not be as big of a target, but then apparently people say "well yeah but I wanted -100% energy heat and +100% energy cooldown quirks instead."

[ScarecrowES]

Pjwned, on 22 February 2016 - 04:49 PM, said:

That's part of the process of rebalancing things though, a mech like the Nova is too big so it gets scaled down to not be as big of a target, but then apparently people say "well yeah but I wanted -100% energy heat and +100% energy cooldown quirks instead."

The Nova is an interesting example of the problems of rescaling. Proportionately, the mech is fine. It just needs to be smaller. But it needs to be made so much smaller that a ton of work needs to be done to make it so. Something seemingly so simple is actually a ton of work.

But what about mechs that are not so simple? We'd say the centurion and awesome are too big, right? But in what way? I think most would say their heights are fine, but they're too wide for that height. So to fix those, you're not doing a simple all-axis rescale. You're basically narrowing out the model. But this has to be done only in certain places, as to not mess up the geo so much that you can no longer mount hardpoints correctly. Other mechs, like the shadowhawk, are too tall. But same problem. You have to pick and choose where you can squash things down.

Hell, for some models, merely fixing the head, or the messiness of the side torsos would be enough. But there aren't many where a global rescale would be appropriate. So to go through each and every mech and get the proportions all right... it's a lot more than people think.

[Deathlike]

AFAIK, the rescaling started late last year (more like Dec 2015 than whatever was imagined - unless confirmed).

It's hard to figure out a proper ETA, considering how the Stalker made out with some problems after the dynamic hardpoint changes.

[Bishop Steiner]

Deathlike, on 22 February 2016 - 05:54 PM, said:

AFAIK, the rescaling started late last year (more like Dec 2015 than whatever was imagined - unless confirmed).

It's hard to figure out a proper ETA, considering how the Stalker made out with some problems after the dynamic hardpoint changes.

Late December was confirmed by Russ, and references several times in this thread already.

[Deathlike]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 February 2016 - 06:09 PM, said:

Late December was confirmed by Russ, and references several times in this thread already.

To be fair, the wait for this was much longer. It's what's actually done is significantly that much shorter.

[Dino Might]

These topics always remind me of one of my favorite movies...

"I'll send the boat back for you, Ralph!"
"When?"
"Soon!"
"How soon?"
"Very soon!"



Really, they've done some decent work in the past year. The pace will never be fast enough, no matter how fast it is. Now try waiting for the Leatherneck Sims F-14...been salivating for a couple of years, now.

Edited by Dino Might, 22 February 2016 - 06:22 PM.

[JediPanther]

I already have Jester. What ever the new hero turns out to be it should be interesting. The only other mech chassis in the game with two heroes are the double dragons.

[Pjwned]

ScarecrowES, on 22 February 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

The Nova is an interesting example of the problems of rescaling. Proportionately, the mech is fine. It just needs to be smaller. But it needs to be made so much smaller that a ton of work needs to be done to make it so. Something seemingly so simple is actually a ton of work.

But what about mechs that are not so simple? We'd say the centurion and awesome are too big, right? But in what way? I think most would say their heights are fine, but they're too wide for that height. So to fix those, you're not doing a simple all-axis rescale. You're basically narrowing out the model. But this has to be done only in certain places, as to not mess up the geo so much that you can no longer mount hardpoints correctly. Other mechs, like the shadowhawk, are too tall. But same problem. You have to pick and choose where you can squash things down.

Hell, for some models, merely fixing the head, or the messiness of the side torsos would be enough. But there aren't many where a global rescale would be appropriate. So to go through each and every mech and get the proportions all right... it's a lot more than people think.

I understand that it's probably a lot of work to do, but I'm not really sympathetic in that regard because the poor scaling of mechs was brought up MANY times to PGI, and when mech packs started coming out semi-regularly people posted their concerns over and over about needing to do a better job at scaling mechs, but it never came.

PGI instead just chose to dig themselves deeper and deeper into a hole to seemingly never do anything to address bad mech scaling, and now that they're trying to work on it (to at least some extent) it's clearly a monumental task because they have to correct so many bad mechs.

[Bishop Steiner]

Pjwned, on 24 February 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

I understand that it's probably a lot of work to do, but I'm not really sympathetic in that regard because the poor scaling of mechs was brought up MANY times to PGI, and when mech packs started coming out semi-regularly people posted their concerns over and over about needing to do a better job at scaling mechs, but it never came.

PGI instead just chose to dig themselves deeper and deeper into a hole to seemingly never do anything to address bad mech scaling, and now that they're trying to work on it (to at least some extent) it's clearly a monumental task because they have to correct so many bad mechs.

As one of the guys on the front line of that fight with PGI, I really can't argue against this.

But while not expecting sympathy for them, those who are misrepresenting it, making a big deal out of it etc, aren't helping anyone or anything, and if anything are more likely to make PGI even less responsive in the future.

At least they are responding, a day late and a dollar short, mind you, but that is more than a lot of companies do. (Not claiming PGI is a bastion of customer relations, just commenting on the sad shape of the "industry standard")

[ScarecrowES]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 February 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

As one of the guys on the front line of that fight with PGI, I really can't argue against this.

But while not expecting sympathy for them, those who are misrepresenting it, making a big deal out of it etc, aren't helping anyone or anything, and if anything are more likely to make PGI even less responsive in the future.

At least they are responding, a day late and a dollar short, mind you, but that is more than a lot of companies do. (Not claiming PGI is a bastion of customer relations, just commenting on the sad shape of the "industry standard")

Remember too that the community initially was only using entirely subjective and preferential statements about mech scaling for the longest time. It was only when a few folks sat down and built a set of quantifiable comparisons did PGI really look into it and go, "oh, yeah, we see it now."

Had we actually done a little more clarification and a lot less whining at the start, things probably would have been addressed sooner. Russ really seems to respond to charts.

[Bishop Steiner]

ScarecrowES, on 24 February 2016 - 09:18 AM, said:

Remember too that the community initially was only using entirely subjective and preferential statements about mech scaling for the longest time. It was only when a few folks sat down and built a set of quantifiable comparisons did PGI really look into it and go, "oh, yeah, we see it now."

Had we actually done a little more clarification and a lot less whining at the start, things probably would have been addressed sooner. Russ really seems to respond to charts.

Didn't help that a lot of the early charts were inherently flawed, focused too much on pixel count and such. Though while not having the skills to quantify adequately, I must say a lot of the issues should have been obvious to a blind chimp.

[Scout Derek]

Trainee, on 24 February 2016 - 10:41 AM, said:

But you wouldn't admit to that huh?

And I've now met another person who fails to follows the ToS, and the CoC, let alone read it. And we're not Bishop's "Buddies" at all, in fact, he's gotten in trouble too at some points.

As well as this not only have you made an nonconstructive post about another, but then continued with discussing moderation, which is against CoC.

I'd advise that if you want a respectable position here, you take the attitude and put it somewhere where no one can see it. And if you can't, I'd advise where someone with half a mind would listen.

[Bishop Steiner]

Scout Derek, on 24 February 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

And w[/i][/b][b][i]e're not Bishop's "Buddies" at all, in fact, he's gotten in trouble too at some points.

The first rule off Moderation Club is: you do not talk about Moderation Club........

[C E Dwyer]

MeiSooHaityu, on 22 February 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

Butter Bee has 4 missile hard points.

Don't forget hard point inflation, P.G.I are a big fan of that, so as a rough estimate I'm guessing the new hero will be the butterbee, but with six missile hard points, AMS hard point, at least two ballistic hard points and six energy hard points, for the TAG

[ScarecrowES]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 February 2016 - 09:34 AM, said:

Didn't help that a lot of the early charts were inherently flawed, focused too much on pixel count and such. Though while not having the skills to quantify adequately, I must say a lot of the issues should have been obvious to a blind chimp.

You know how it is though... Paul always goes his own way on features and balance, regardless of what you show him, and Russ tends to reserve judgement until you can bring him something concrete and quantifiable. The best path to change, then, is always through Russ with realistic repeatable data in hand.

[cazidin]

Cathy, on 24 February 2016 - 12:17 PM, said:

Don't forget hard point inflation, P.G.I are a big fan of that, so as a rough estimate I'm guessing the new hero will be the butterbee, but with six missile hard points, AMS hard point, at least two ballistic hard points and six energy hard points, for the TAG

If the Buttlebee had 6 Missile hardpoints AND decent quirks? I would tell PGI to shut up and take my money. Unfortunately, in the past, throwing money at the screen rarely works... but i'm still hopeful!

[Ted Wayz]

MeiSooHaityu, on 22 February 2016 - 12:19 PM, said:

As is often pointed out, I don't think mech designers and modelers deal with faction and weapon balance. I'm sure other departments handle that.

Now the Archer and any new mech packs coming up, that might push the Nova and Catapult into a low priority condition.

And this is alright?

It doesn't matter that people have different roles, at the end of the day PGI needs to make decisions about resources. So yes the mech designers may not deal with weapon balance, but if both need resourcing PGI has to put the money somewhere. Any money put to one activity means it does not go to another activity.

By your logic PGI never has to do re-scale because there will always be packs coming out. And frankly why fulfill your commitments to your fans if they give you excuses not to do your job.

So no, you can't say something like putting resources towards a new color palette does not mean something doesn't suffer. Business' have finite resources so there is always an opportunity cost for making a decision.

What would be nice is if people who say they have the good of the community at heart, that they want to fight the good fight, would actually follow the will of the community instead of personal agendas. In this case the will of the community was clearly stated and PGI made a commitment to fulfill that will.