108 replies to this topic

[cazidin]

Theory, Bishop. Would the Vindicator be a better mech if it had a much large engine cap? That's well within PGIs power to change is it not?

[Juodas Varnas]

Bishop Steiner, on 01 April 2016 - 07:06 AM, said:

Ah. Cosmetics. I get that. After all, I am the guy who won't touch his K2 because it's once perfect aesthetics got butchered in the extremely lazy weapon redo (which has done very little to help the game, visually, and a lot to butcher a lot of mechs).

But I also do realize they are also purely subjective, and that believe it or not, there are folks who like the stocky look on the CN9 over the lanky look. If I was to stump for cosmetic changes on the CN9, personally? I'd stump for my old right arm back, with the variable geometry covering ONLY the barrel, in the manner demonstrated by the chap who made the physical 3D YLW Model for PGI, and then for my missile bay doors back.

Well, if you want stocky get a Hunchback, i say.

But i do agree about the dynamic geometry being changed.
Especially the missile doors. I want my individual missile doors back, damn it!

[Bishop Steiner]

cazidin, on 01 April 2016 - 07:09 AM, said:

Theory, Bishop. Would the Vindicator be a better mech if it had a much large engine cap? That's well within PGIs power to change is it not?

It would help. The least obsolete VND is the 1AA. It is still currently oversized, and undergunned, like all VNDs, but it's the one that is most successful. The SIB I find to be the second most useful..and it has the second highest cap. I spelled out my thoughts on the VNDs in my first or second post of this thread, tbh.
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5111427

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 01 April 2016 - 07:30 AM.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 01 April 2016 - 06:58 AM, said:

No, I didn't ask for quirk "purging", I asked for a clean board reset, which is a totally different thing.

As for "measurement" over judgement... one should always default to science of "feeling". Or have you somehow missed me being in total support of the rescale, even where it may "hurt" some pet rides?

I highly doubt, in the grand scale, more quirks would be "needed", especially if we started from clean slates, instead of quirking mechs to compete against already overquirked mechs. Remove 40 and 50% cooldowns, and such and one likely won't see many mechs needing 50% structure boosts. Or we maintain the status quo and watch powercreep continue to spiral out of control, and TTK go down just as fast, until we have to increase armor to the point we are playing Papercut Warrior.

As a reminder, making the Archer even bigger is going to imply even more structure quirks, because even with its current supposedly "too small" size (a notion which I shake my head at) it's not that durable of a gundam.

Or you can have an Archer that falls apart quicker than a Vulture, I guess that's another option.

Bishop Steiner, on 01 April 2016 - 06:58 AM, said:

Scale should never be a "balance" tool, like hardpoint inflation and hitboxes. Adjust those as needed, and then, as stated, and now repeated, because folks appear to want to debate for the sake of, use quirks to fix what can't be balanced, instead of making quirks the key selling point of a mech.

Hitboxes can only go so far because hitboxes are strongly connected to the overall shape of the mech's body. The Vulture is a good example of a case where hitbox adjustments can't really help it because it's going to either be too much CT or too much ST.


Trying to separate scaling from balancing is a false dichotomy. The former has a direct influence on the latter. In particular, a number of the mechs that are sub-par in MWO are that way in part because of their scaling.

Look at the Catapult and Nova, for instance.

Nobody asked for the Cat and Nova be to shrunken down because they didn't line up on a spreadsheet. The reason people have continuously asked for those two mechs to be shrunken down is BECAUSE THEIR SCALING WAS DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS.

You and I both have complained about the size of these two mechs without consulting a spreadsheet; we used our common sense to reach this conclusion.

Bishop, would you and I have complained about the Nova's size if it had turned out to be durable with that size? The answer is no, we wouldn't have. We only complained about it BECAUSE IT IMPACTED BALANCE.


Trying to separate scaling from balance is like trying to separate weapon/equipment balance from mech balance.

Things that directly and strongly impact balance cannot and should not be separated from balance. This should be extremely obvious.

Bishop Steiner, on 01 April 2016 - 06:58 AM, said:

Again, not really sure what the confusion is. Or even where people have trouble with changing their stance when empirical data shows that they were wrong.

So, how about your own past stance about the Crab? Are the arguments and logic that you used in the past to form your position, suddenly invalidated and flushed down the toilet?

If you don't remember, I can try to dig up your quotes if you like.


---------------------------------------


The bottom line is that I think PGI is skipping a major phase in this entire process.

The "ideal" step-by-step procedure should look like this:
1. Collect data
2. Interpret data
3. Make decisions

PGI is currently doing it like this:
1. Collect data
2. Interpret data
2. Make decisions

That, I think, is pretty whack...

Edited by FupDup, 01 April 2016 - 08:34 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 01 April 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

As a reminder, making the Archer even bigger is going to imply even more structure quirks, because even with its current supposedly "too small" size (a notion which I shake my head at) it's not that durable of a gundam.

Or you can have an Archer that falls apart quicker than a Vulture, I guess that's another option.

That, I think, is pretty whack...

If the Archer is not facing mechs with 30-50% cooldowns, velocity buffs and heat generation quirks, WILL it fall apart faster?

Or are you correlating one thing in a vacuum, again?

Also, if one mech ends up needing heavy quirks because of geometry (see, Dragon/Awesome) is that the same as Quirks "increasing" across the board?

No.

Let's actually discuss the same thing, shall we, instead of moving the target wherever your apparent desire to argue desires?

As for separating "scale from balancing", to be able to balance ANYTHING, there needs to be a hard ruler to measure against. Scale is that ruler, and all the determining factors can be based around that.

What can't be done, is to ever achieve balance if ALL aspects are morphable on a whim. THAT is why we have such issues now, and PGIs lack of scaling consistency is one of the reasons we have such whack quirks.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 01 April 2016 - 08:37 AM.

[Adamski]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 01 April 2016 - 06:17 AM, said:

I'd argue surface area would be better, or even trying to equalize both at the same time, but this is about the Vindi which suffers pretty much in all areas because of the dartboard of balance.

Surface area doesnt work because mechs with geometry like fins have a much greater surface area without increasing volume.

The only times the volume method doesnt work is when too much volume is put into the torso and not enough into the limbs.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 01 April 2016 - 08:35 AM, said:

If the Archer is not facing mechs with 30-50% cooldowns, velocity buffs and heat generation quirks, WILL it fall apart faster?

Or are you correlating one thing in a vacuum, again?

Also, if one mech ends up needing heavy quirks because of geometry (see, Dragon/Awesome) is that the same as Quirks "increasing" across the board?

No.

Let's actually discuss the same thing, shall we, instead of moving the target wherever your apparent desire to argue desires?

Removing those super-big weapon quirks (which are already mostly gone, but w/e) will make all mechs survive a bit longer, not just Archers. Since all of them gain durability at the same time, the Archie's relative position in the pecking order would probably remain about the same.

[Juodas Varnas]

Can we just go back to talking about how useless Vindicators are?

[FupDup]

Juodas Varnas, on 01 April 2016 - 08:39 AM, said:

Can we just go back to talking about how useless Vindicators are?

Vindicators are so useless that they can't even keep our attention in a thread intended specifically to talk about them.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 01 April 2016 - 08:38 AM, said:

Removing those super-big weapon quirks (which are already mostly gone, but w/e) will make all mechs survive a bit longer, not just Archers. Since all of them gain durability at the same time, the Archie's relative position in the pecking order would probably remain about the same.

Something is always low on the pecking order. I'm worried about actual TTK not where it sit's on Forbes Most Desirable list.

But nice job sidestepping the "if one chassis still needs quirks, not the same as quirks increasing globally" thing. You musta been the dodgeball champion of your elementary school

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 01 April 2016 - 08:45 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Vindicators need big PPC cooldown and PPC Heat Generation quirks. Bumping those up would massivly-boost their viability.

[cazidin]

Bishop Steiner, on 01 April 2016 - 08:44 AM, said:

Something is always low on the pecking order. I'm worried about actual TTK not where it sit's on Forbes Most Desirable list.

But nice job sidestepping the "if one chassis still needs quirks, not the same as quirks increasing globally" thing. You musta been the dodgeball champion of your elementary school

/Popcorn.

[TercieI]

FupDup, on 01 April 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

Vindicators are so useless that they can't even keep our attention in a thread intended specifically to talk about them.

Nail. Coffin. Nothing more to see here.

[Barkem Squirrel]

Still pop-tarting with the one due to the PPC quirks. Still you can not really brawl with the thing. Sniping is hard to to low slung arms. LRM Boat? Not enough missile points. AC/ energy load out? Maybe.

figure that you have to use an XL engine for most builds and that limits what you can do.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 01 April 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

The bottom line is that I think PGI is skipping a major phase in this entire process.

The "ideal" step-by-step procedure should look like this:
1. Collect data
2. Interpret data
3. Make decisions

PGI is currently doing it like this:
1. Collect data
2. Interpret data
2. Confirm mechpron drooling
3. Make decisions

That, I think, is pretty whack...

Fixed for you.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Adamski, on 01 April 2016 - 08:35 AM, said:

Surface area doesnt work because mechs with geometry like fins have a much greater surface area without increasing volume.

If it counts as a hitbox, fins can be detrimental to a mech, just ask the Jager and Rifleman how much they love the fact their fins can be hit.

Surface area is also the reason thin but lanky mechs like the Grasshopper are more or less, appropriately sized despite having smaller volume, because they have a lot of area that you can hit on the mech. Sorry but Surface Area is still the most appropriate method to make sure oddly shape mechs don't get too much/little benefit during a rescale like this.

[FupDup]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 01 April 2016 - 09:40 AM, said:

If it counts as a hitbox, fins can be detrimental to a mech, just ask the Jager and Rifleman how much they love the fact their fins can be hit.

Surface area is also the reason thin but lanky mechs like the Grasshopper are more or less, appropriately sized despite having smaller volume, because they have a lot of area that you can hit on the mech. Sorry but Surface Area is still the most appropriate method to make sure oddly shape mechs don't get too much/little benefit during a rescale like this.

No one, ever said:

"Hey guys, let's make the Grasshopper bigger!"

[Adamski]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 01 April 2016 - 09:40 AM, said:

If it counts as a hitbox, fins can be detrimental to a mech, just ask the Jager and Rifleman how much they love the fact their fins can be hit.

Surface area is also the reason thin but lanky mechs like the Grasshopper are more or less, appropriately sized despite having smaller volume, because they have a lot of area that you can hit on the mech. Sorry but Surface Area is still the most appropriate method to make sure oddly shape mechs don't get too much/little benefit during a rescale like this.

You can easily increase the Grasshoppers volume by increasing the thickness of its arms or legs. In the case of the arms, it would probably even help it more by adding to its tankiness. Alternately, increase its depth, while leaving its height and width alone, or some combination of the two.

Admittedly it would be more intensive than simply using the resize option in the modeling program, so not sure how likely PGI's team would use those options.

[FupDup]

I keep mashing F5 while looking at the home page, but PGI doesn't seem to have posted an update for April 1st yet.

Maybe they will post that they plan to buff the Vindicator...

[TercieI]

FupDup, on 01 April 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

I keep mashing F5 while looking at the home page, but PGI doesn't seem to have posted an update for April 1st yet.

Maybe they will post that they plan to buff the Vindicator...

No, I promise that will happen in about a week when I've finished leveling them.