114 replies to this topic

[Zolaz]

Thorqemada, on 02 March 2016 - 09:33 PM, said:

From Russ Twitter:
Cent just 1.7 oversized
Shadow hawk just 1.4% oversized

A sign that volume not necessarily is allways a measurement that leads to the right conclusion (bcs Volume is a not function that is independant from the Shape of a Mech and thus a Mech can very easy be way to big on 2 of the 3 Axes while having a pretty low Volume when its Body is shaped/build that way)

Both Shadow Hawk and Centurion are to tall/big imo compared to the almost perfect Haunchback Medium Mech as they match the size of way bigger Mechs.
Then Centurion needs to be more slim at least and the Shadow Hawk is a Medium in the Body of a Heavy.

They will even be worth less after rescaling when other Mechs become considerably smaller.


PS: What is the Volume of a Barndoor?

You think anyone over at PGI is good at maths? If Russ trotted out a ringer to prove they did, Id just ask how often Russ actually listens to that guy.

[Juodas Varnas]

Thorqemada, on 02 March 2016 - 09:33 PM, said:

Cent just 1.7 oversized

But i guess it COULD be fine, if they only made it skinnier, instead of reducing its size on all axes.

Now i wonder if the Hunchback is oversized or undersized according to them...

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 03 March 2016 - 01:05 AM.

[Idealsuspect]

Wintersdark, on 02 March 2016 - 11:12 PM, said:

Seriously, guys.

blabla PGI blabla

Tell me I'm wrong.

I tell you ... you are







F******

Edited by Idealsuspect, 03 March 2016 - 01:40 AM.

[DerMaulwurf]

Wintersdark, on 02 March 2016 - 11:24 PM, said:

This is what I think of whenever people complain about this. After all, this is procedural, it's ensuring things fit in terms of tonnage:volume. Is it perfect? No. But it is predictable and logical. Both being things PGI is not good at. I'll take what I can get in this instance, thanks.

Normalization is also predictable and logical. Doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea. Actually, doing something in a procedural way is only superior over a case-by-case treatment if your judgment of cases is flawed. And even if you consider that to be the case, the quality of an algorithmic adjustment is 100% dependent on which variable you chose to base your algorithm on. Why is volume an important variable? Why chose it over alternatives? Over which alternative?

The 'proper' size is influenced by lots of factors. Is the shape of the arms sutiable to shielding components? If yes, from which angles. Is the absolute size really that important in a specific case? (Don't tell me that your ability to hit a Dire Whale will be influenced if it was 20% shorter).

Just changing to a procedural approach changes absolutely NOTHING. You're still dependent on how well the procedure accounts and which variables were decided to be factored in.

[Alistair Winter]

Wintersdark, on 02 March 2016 - 11:12 PM, said:

Seriously, guys.
This method - volumetric scaling based on tonnage - is probably the BEST option we can have.
You know what the alternative is? Have you thought this through?
The realistic alternative is this:
PGI just starts rescaling mechs by hand to where they "feel" the mech should be.
Now stop and think about this for a minute.
Which do you think is going to get the most reliable, consistent results? Scaling the mechs by volume, or PGI hand-tuning each one.

Most of the balancing of MWO is done by what you call 'feel'. How do they determine module slots? Max engine size? Agility stats, like torso twist. Hardpoints, jump jets, even the mech models themselves are designed and balanced arbitrarily. So suddenly applying one logical element isn't necessarily going to solve anything. For example, the shape of the Awesome is probably the least ideal for MWO. A big flat front profile. Would you really design a mech like that, if you were designing the ideal mech?

As others have pointed out, they will need to compensate for the consistent rescaling with inconsistent quirks anyway.

[Adamski]

Balancing by volume is fine.

The next logical step, would be to have certain parameters for different components that make up the volume.

ie: The 2 legs should make up between 25-35% of the mechs overall volume
The 2 arms would make up another 25-35%
The 3 torso sections would make up the final 30-40% less some standardized Cockpit section that is the same size across all mechs.

The main problem with the Awesome / Cataphract etc models, is that they have small legs, small arms, and then huge torso's. Overall their volume is fine, its where the volume is distributed that's the problem.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

in the BT/Robotech lore, the Shadow Hawk is Height 9,63m

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 03 March 2016 - 03:37 AM.

[xe N on]

The major reason why the SHD is at best mediocre at moment (and I have 4 SHDs elited in Hanger rusting) is not it's dimensions but It's bad hardpoints and bad quirks .. and it's quite bad cockpit.

Shrinking the SHD even to the size of the hunchback will solve none of it's current problems.

I really liked driving my SHDs but currently it's just cannon fodder.

Btw. it would be quite cool if you could shoulder the Autocannons in game

Edited by xe N on, 03 March 2016 - 03:57 AM.

[Adamski]

There is nothing conflicting with using volume to determine size, and using Lore to determine height.

It just means PGIs artists need to change the width and/or depth when editing a mechs volume instead of its height.

(Of course PGI already admittedly ignored mech height scaling with the atlas way back in closed beta, making it taller to make it seem more daunting, so a number of mechs would need their height rescaled anyways).

Edited by Adamski, 03 March 2016 - 04:05 AM.

[Kuritaclan]

Thorqemada, on 02 March 2016 - 09:33 PM, said:

From Russ Twitter:
Cent just 1.7 oversized
Shadow hawk just 1.4% oversized

A sign that volume not necessarily is allways a measurement that leads to the right conclusion (bcs Volume is a not function that is independant from the Shape of a Mech and thus a Mech can very easy be way to big on 2 of the 3 Axes while having a pretty low Volume when its Body is shaped/build that way)

Both Shadow Hawk and Centurion are to tall/big imo compared to the almost perfect Haunchback Medium Mech as they match the size of way bigger Mechs.
Then Centurion needs to be more slim at least and the Shadow Hawk is a Medium in the Body of a Heavy.

They will even be worth less after rescaling when other Mechs become considerably smaller.


PS: What is the Volume of a Barndoor?

Now we know their approach. However it has happened what i suspected. And by the way - thx for the 9 downvotes back then.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 03 March 2016 - 04:19 AM.

[Adamski]

Just look at this, to get an idea for how absurd Lore heights would be in MWO
http://i56.photobuck...zps018b6e24.jpg

Edited by Adamski, 03 March 2016 - 04:18 AM.

[Adamski]

To put it into perspective, the tallest Clan mech is the Executioner at 14.4m tall, and the shortest is the NVA at 8.3m tall, which is more than half its height. The Mist Lynx, Kit Fox, Adder, and Firemoth are all taller than the NVA.

[Chemie]

a medium almost as tall as an Atlas, which is still viewed as OP by PGI so has no quirks, nerfed JJ, and not so greas hard points. If not scale, would love to hear how they can be brought back from the unseen (have not played mine for 2+ years and used to love them)

[GrimRiver]

That made me sad when he posted about the SHD because I like brawl in my 2H but it's soo easy to hit with it's huge boxyness, even it's head hitbox is well...a huge box that even stray SRM's can hit.

Then he said the crab is 7% too small, so I said 7% too perfect.

[CDLord HHGD]

The important thing that you didn't mention is that they have a formula and a procedure to rescale mechs. Once the rescale is done, they aren't deleting that information. If there are some mechs afterwards still not quite right, they can be revisited.

Patience.

Edited by cdlord, 03 March 2016 - 06:20 AM.

[Davegt27]

The whole scale thing is hilarious

Since the whole thing is based on pure fiction

How do you know how big is big

[CDLord HHGD]

Davegt27, on 03 March 2016 - 06:50 AM, said:

The whole scale thing is hilarious

Since the whole thing is based on pure fiction

How do you know how big is big

There are many references across the novels as to their height. The Victor for example is supposed to be the tallest IS mech (taller than the Atlas). But that is still somewhere around a 4-5 story building/14m in height I think. In MWO, we want to be on the smaller side of the scale just because of the FPS nature of the game. Smaller targets are harder to hit etc. On the flip side, the light mechs are also not as small as they are portrayed in MWO. They can be somewhat tall(ish) but lanky and whatever fluff you want to use to account for their lightness (hollow bones, whatever). While I think some mechs are too small, the majority are too big and only a precious few are "just right". I certainly don't count the Shadow Hawk among the ones that are "just right" but like I said above, they have a good formula to rescale. They'll use it afterwards if experience dictates.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 02 March 2016 - 10:06 PM, said:

But for all its firepower, the Whale is still a rather niche 'Mech due to its speed. You are better served filling your Assault slots with Maulers

The irony is the typical Mauler build runs about 1kph faster, if that, which is why the Whale really isn't that niche, builds just had to change to accommodate the laser nerfs and slight change in meta.



Also, I still believe Surface Area should've been factored into these scaling determinations simply because with volume, thin mechs like the Grasshopper are probably going to get bigger.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 03 March 2016 - 07:35 AM.

[Mead]

Davegt27, on 03 March 2016 - 06:50 AM, said:

The whole scale thing is hilarious

Since the whole thing is based on pure fiction

How do you know how big is big

It reminds me of when, way back when, a bunch of us went to see... that movie where Sean Connery voiced the dragon.. Dragonheart? Anyway, one of them said he didn't like the movie because the dragon wasn't a realistic size.

We still give him **** about that to this day.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Sigilum Sanctum, on 02 March 2016 - 11:09 PM, said:

Russ said the Grasshopper might need to get fatter.

Jesus christ, I will scream.

Hopefully they’re just going to make it longer. So the side profile will be a bit longer to absorb some of the volume so it doesn’t all go into height. If it gets wider though… so the front profile is bigger… holy cow… unleash the demon!
Hopefully they’ll fix the run/walk animations for that mech while they completely re-adjust the frame. That’d be nice.