61 replies to this topic

[Milocinia]

I've said before that this volumetric system shouldn't be used alone to reliably rescale the mechs. Every single mech has to be looked at individually. Stance, limb sizes and if you're compmetaproleet then hardpoint locations all need to be taken into consideration.

You can use a mech's volume as a guide but it shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Then again this is PGI. I'm surprised they don't just pull random numbers out of a hat.

[C E Dwyer]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 April 2016 - 05:46 PM, said:

Nope. It'll get just big enough.

That's what happens when "too small" gets made "just right".

like the temperature of Porridge hmm that would work better in a Kodiak Thread

[zagibu]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 April 2016 - 06:33 PM, said:

still waiting for someone to actually explain how volumetric is flawed...or how silhouettes was somehow better.

Volumetric is flawed because mechs are z-aligned and the maps are mostly slight variations of a plane. If you still don't understand, I suggest to read an introductory geometry course.

However, I actually think it's good that PGI is doing a volumetric normalization. It means they will have a baseline instead of the completely out of whack freehand scaling that they seem to have been doing in the past.

But it will not be enough. They will still have to balance the completely different target profiles by individually adjusting the scaling (which they probably won't do) or giving quirks to the less fortunately proportioned mechs.

Milocinia, on 06 April 2016 - 11:55 AM, said:

I've said before that this volumetric system shouldn't be used alone to reliably rescale the mechs. Every single mech has to be looked at individually. Stance, limb sizes and if you're compmetaproleet then hardpoint locations all need to be taken into consideration.

You can use a mech's volume as a guide but it shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Then again this is PGI. I'm surprised they don't just pull random numbers out of a hat.

You forgot one very important point: hitbox shape. Two mechs can have a similar overall shape, but one can be a super tank and the other a glass cannon, just because the torsos claim different amounts of area in the target profiles.

[Revis Volek]

zagibu, on 06 April 2016 - 12:22 PM, said:

Volumetric is flawed because mechs are z-aligned and the maps are mostly slight variations of a plane. If you still don't understand, I suggest to read an introductory geometry course.

However, I actually think it's good that PGI is doing a volumetric normalization. It means they will have a baseline instead of the completely out of whack freehand scaling that they seem to have been doing in the past.

But it will not be enough. They will still have to balance the completely different target profiles by individually adjusting the scaling (which they probably won't do) or giving quirks to the less fortunately proportioned mechs.



You forgot one very important point: hitbox shape. Two mechs can have a similar overall shape, but one can be a super tank and the other a glass cannon, just because the torsos claim different amounts of area in the target profiles.

So you thinks its flawed but good?

Sense, you made none.

[Bishop Steiner]

zagibu, on 06 April 2016 - 12:22 PM, said:

Volumetric is flawed because mechs are z-aligned and the maps are mostly slight variations of a plane. If you still don't understand, I suggest to read an introductory geometry course.

However, I actually think it's good that PGI is doing a volumetric normalization. It means they will have a baseline instead of the completely out of whack freehand scaling that they seem to have been doing in the past.

But it will not be enough. They will still have to balance the completely different target profiles by individually adjusting the scaling (which they probably won't do) or giving quirks to the less fortunately proportioned mechs.



You forgot one very important point: hitbox shape. Two mechs can have a similar overall shape, but one can be a super tank and the other a glass cannon, just because the torsos claim different amounts of area in the target profiles.

I'm well aware of how volumetric scaling works, actually. And no one suggests it solves balance alone. It is, as you just said, a solid ,( and reasonable ) baseline though, removing one more possible imbalance from the equation. Of course based on actual geometry, speeds, assigned armor values,. nature and quantity of firepower, and such, quirks will still be needed to bandaid things.

My comment wad in regard to th vastly more flawed, pixel count and silhouette scaling models proposed so often add superior. Of the reasonably doable basic methods available, which gives a superior baseline?

[zagibu]

Revis Volek, on 06 April 2016 - 12:29 PM, said:

So you thinks its flawed but good?

Sense, you made none.

I think it's flawed, but still better than what we have now. And I don't think that PGI is capable of correctly addressing the problem, so volumetric scaling in combination with balancing through structure quirks is probably the best idea.

Bishop Steiner, on 06 April 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

My comment wad in regard to th vastly more flawed, pixel count and silhouette scaling models proposed so often add superior. Of the reasonably doable basic methods available, which gives a superior baseline?

Not sure which methods you mean in particular, but orthographic front and side profile area comparisons are actually more accurate representations of battlefield "target size" than a volume comparison.

[Beartech]

Revis Volek, on 05 April 2016 - 06:13 PM, said:

So having a standard and sticking to it is asinine?
Because we didnt complain with the last results of NOT having a standard and just making mechs whatever size FELT right. Yea this is totally a worse idea....

I like the way you express yourself, we should do lunch

[Revis Volek]

zagibu, on 06 April 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

I think it's flawed, but still better than what we have now. And I don't think that PGI is capable of correctly addressing the problem, so volumetric scaling in combination with balancing through structure quirks is probably the best idea.

ahh, well we are on the same page then. Find a standard or baseline as close to one as you can get and then re do the quirks AFTER. Which is pretty much what PGI has in mind as far as i can tell. Hence the no new quirking until rescale is complete.

Beartech, on 06 April 2016 - 12:51 PM, said:

I like the way you express yourself, we should do lunch

If you are even in my neck of the woods, i know a Mexican place that will knock your socks off, best thing next to going and having lunch with Bishop.

Edited by Revis Volek, 06 April 2016 - 01:05 PM.

[LORD TSARKON]

Forget the 7 percent crabs.... my poor Stalkers are getting a huge Nerf (although you dont see me complaining... really)..

The CAtapult has been almost the same size as the Stalkers for almost 3.5 years... and it took PGI this long to fix... so I guess I should be happy as a Stalker Pilot that I had a nice advantage for so long.

[Snowbluff]

LORD TSARKON, on 06 April 2016 - 01:12 PM, said:

Forget the 7 percent crabs.... my poor Stalkers are getting a huge Nerf (although you dont see me complaining... really)..

The CAtapult has been almost the same size as the Stalkers for almost 3.5 years... and it took PGI this long to fix... so I guess I should be happy as a Stalker Pilot that I had a nice advantage for so long.

Yeah the new catapult is much small.

I wonder how stalker will end up with it's geometry. It's very nearly a cube, in terms of volume.

[Bishop Steiner]

zagibu, on 06 April 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

I think it's flawed, but still better than what we have now. And I don't think that PGI is capable of correctly addressing the problem, so volumetric scaling in combination with balancing through structure quirks is probably the best idea.



Not sure which methods you mean in particular, but orthographic front and side profile area comparisons are actually more accurate representations of battlefield "target size" than a volume comparison.

and "battlefield target size" does not equal realistic scale. One might say it's better for "game balance", but not for actually setting a consistent physical baseline. I'd prefer a solid immutable baseline to quirk from than a subjective one that will just be a rush toward how to min/max silhouettes and still leaves their actual size a subjective standard.

Volume among constants is the least fraught with subjectivity and imbalance.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 06 April 2016 - 03:27 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Revis Volek, on 06 April 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

If you are even in my neck of the woods, i know a Mexican place that will knock your socks off, best thing next to going and having lunch with Bishop.

I lol'd a tad. <o

[LT. HARDCASE]

Compiled all Russ said on Twitter:

Locust 12% over
Crab 7% under
Nova was 13.5% over
Centurion 1.7% over
Enforcer "couple % under"
Shadow Hawk 1.4% over
Catapult 13.5% over
Quickdraw 7.5% over
Dragon 7% over
Warhawk 7% over
Dire Wolf 6.6% over

According to Russ, there is no mech in each class being treated as the "golden" or "reference" by which all other mechs in the weight class by which all others are judged. They've chosen their own volume per ton. While I'm sure one of our genius community members can use these numbers to figure out the volume per ton, I'm not that guy.

Really hoping my Vindicators are high up on the oversized scale.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

So lights are going to be rescaled too?

[ScarecrowES]

LT. HARDCASE, on 06 April 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

Compiled all Russ said on Twitter:

Locust 12% over
Crab 7% under
Nova was 13.5% over
Centurion 1.7% over
Enforcer "couple % under"
Shadow Hawk 1.4% over
Catapult 13.5% over
Quickdraw 7.5% over
Dragon 7% over
Warhawk 7% over
Dire Wolf 6.6% over

According to Russ, there is no mech in each class being treated as the "golden" or "reference" by which all other mechs in the weight class by which all others are judged. They've chosen their own volume per ton. While I'm sure one of our genius community members can use these numbers to figure out the volume per ton, I'm not that guy.

Really hoping my Vindicators are high up on the oversized scale.

What you CAN do is establish a relative size per ton, though it's imperfect because the human eye is not very good at reading volume. The Nova was actually 18% off, not 13%... I think I calc'd it out to what... 61-62 tons at its current scaling. Knowing that the current Nova model represents a known tonnage, we can guess where other mechs of shape would be. So if, for instance, the Linebacker was ever dropped into the game, giving the similar frontal profile and the areas in which the volume distribution differs, the Linebacker - at 65 tons - would end up about as large as the Nova currently is.

Some of the other known rescales can help you figure out the relative sizes of other similarly-shaped mechs.

Also, keep in mind that PGI has said they're not doing simple all-axis volumetric rescales for all mechs. Some mechs are getting extra attention with distributed rescaling... arms, legs, etc. So some disadvantaged mechs that need to get upsized or downsized might see just those disadvantaged areas get rescaled.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 06 April 2016 - 06:07 PM.

[Fox With A Shotgun]

I only have one thing to say about this whole thing....

....Will it now be a giant enemy crab?

Does it now have a visible weak spot?

No? Then carry on.

But seriously. The crab is absolutely tiny for a mech that size. I reckon even a KFX is bigger. It definitely warrants quite an inflation.

Edited by Fox With A Shotgun, 06 April 2016 - 06:12 PM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I'm bummed the Crab is getting larger. But I don't think it will change but a very small amount.

It is a bit larger than the other IS medium chicken-walker (Cicada). It's front profile is a tiny bit smaller (in the "shoulders" since the Crab isn't squared off like the Cicada), but the Crab is more than a third longer.

Assuming they only go up a small bit, it shouldn't realistically alter the survivability at all.

With my luck though, it will be the size of a Stalker lol.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 07 April 2016 - 06:22 AM.

[ImperialKnight]

a 12% smaller Lolcust is going to be hilarious

[Yosharian]

I haven't piloted a crab but I know that when I see one coming towards me, ****'s gonna get real. They are tough to kill and they have pretty painful laser alphas.

[Dawnstealer]

Surprised they're thinking of rescaling the 'Hopper: It's a really tall mech with mid-level hardpoints, meaning you have to expose a whole lot of mech before you can shoot most of your weapons. It's in a good spot right now, but if you make it EVEN BIGGER, it'll be nearly unusable.