61 replies to this topic

[Snowbluff]

Thread title!

Crab is a little small for it's tonnage, right? If they are normalizing sizes will my poor Crab get too big?

D':

[Bishop Steiner]

Snowbluff, on 05 April 2016 - 05:45 PM, said:

Thread title!

Crab is a little small for it's tonnage, right? If they are normalizing sizes will my poor Crab get too big?

D':

Nope. It'll get just big enough.

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

[Snowbluff]

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".

You don't understand, your excellency. It's not a very good mech! if it gets bigger I don't know if I can take it! D:

[cazidin]

Snowbluff, on 05 April 2016 - 05:45 PM, said:

Thread title!

Crab is a little small for it's tonnage, right? If they are normalizing sizes will my poor Crab get too big?

D':

Yes, the Crab will get bigger but only a little bigger. The rescale shouldn't affect its durability much.

[Revis Volek]

Snowbluff, on 05 April 2016 - 05:53 PM, said:

You don't understand, your excellency. It's not a very good mech! if it gets bigger I don't know if I can take it! D:

what makes it not a good mech? Skillz?

I have no problem in my crabs, king or not. Its a fine mech for a medium and its size is great as well as having favorable hit boxes if you play it right. One of the few mechs that staring at stuff isnt such a bad idea.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Crabs are actually really good, if not a bit boring to play. So I doubt the resize will affect them much if they put on a little fluff.

Edited by Saint Scarlett Johan, 05 April 2016 - 06:09 PM.

[LT. HARDCASE]

Making the crab and Grasshopper larger are two of the more asinine decisions made by this dev team.

[Revis Volek]

LT. HARDCASE, on 05 April 2016 - 06:09 PM, said:

Making the crab and Grasshopper larger are two of the more asinine decisions made by this dev team.

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....

[cazidin]

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....

Speaking of mechs that feel like they're scaled right but are getting rescaled anyway... didn't Russ say that they were going to make the Marauder bigger too? (It already has a large rear and I cannot lie. You free/vatborn cannot deny.)

[LT. HARDCASE]

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....

A "standard" based on a flawed system of judgment should be thrown in the trash. If their system tells them the Grasshopper isn't large enough, how can you not question the merit of said system? It's already a huge mech for 70 tons.

Nerfing two mechs that aren't world beaters already is stupid, full stop.

[Elkfire]

The Crab is getting scaled up by like, seven percent, supposedly. So the sky isn't falling. Can't speak to the Grasshopper though.

Edited by Elkfire, 05 April 2016 - 06:21 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

LT. HARDCASE, on 05 April 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

A "standard" based on a flawed system of judgment should be thrown in the trash. If their system tells them the Grasshopper isn't large enough, how can you not question the merit of said system? It's already a huge mech for 70 tons.

Nerfing two mechs that aren't world beaters already is stupid, full stop.

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

[Revis Volek]

LT. HARDCASE, on 05 April 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

A "standard" based on a flawed system of judgment should be thrown in the trash. If their system tells them the Grasshopper isn't large enough, how can you not question the merit of said system? It's already a huge mech for 70 tons.

Nerfing two mechs that aren't world beaters already is stupid, full stop.

Well then please explain to me IN YOUR OWN WORDS (since you get it so well) how its is so horribly flawed?

So all of a sudden 7% over the TOTAL VOLUME of the mech is a nerf? We havent even seen the change playout yet and you are crying about nerfs?

I cant speak on the Grasshopper but yea its tall so we will see how they go about that. Being tall isnt the end of the world, just means hill poking is out of its realm of capabilities with such low hardpoints. The mech is also pretty spindly and isnt the most robust mech out there.

But still, please explain how they are flawed. I dont questions systems that make sense and can be shown to.

Edited by Revis Volek, 05 April 2016 - 06:38 PM.

[Shadowomega1]

@Bishop their likely just going to make its size match its actual lore size. Mechs like the Nova are nearly the size of a Heavy but is a Medium in game. In the other Mechwarriors it was true the size of medium, my guess when making the model they likely didn't have a to scale human next to it for reference.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Revis Volek, on 05 April 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

Well then please explain to me IN YOUR OWN WORDS (since you get it so well) how its is so horribly flawed?

So all of a sudden 7% over the TOTAL VOLUME of the mech is a nerf? We havent even seen the change playout yet and you are crying about nerfs?

I cant speak on the Grasshopper but yea its tall so we will see how they go about that. Being tall isnt the end of the world, just means hill poking is out of its realm of capabilities with such low hardpoints. The mech is also pretty spindly and isnt the most robust mech out there.

But still, please explain how they are flawed. I dont questions systems that make sense and can be shown to.

As an avid Hopper fan, I wouldn't mind them bulking it up a bit... if they bulk in the right spots that is.

[Revis Volek]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 05 April 2016 - 06:40 PM, said:

As an avid Hopper fan, I wouldn't mind them bulking it up a bit... if they bulk in the right spots that is.

I agree, id prefer to see a remodel of maybe the legs and arms to take up the missing volume and see if we cant shrink the mech aftewards (height wise) but that will never happen.

[Chimera_]

LT. HARDCASE, on 05 April 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

A "standard" based on a flawed system of judgment should be thrown in the trash. If their system tells them the Grasshopper isn't large enough, how can you not question the merit of said system? It's already a huge mech for 70 tons.

Nerfing two mechs that aren't world beaters already is stupid, full stop.

You seem to assume that height = size, which is a very flawed idea.

A 50 tonner could be twice the height of an Atlas, but still undersized if it was incredibly thin.

The grasshopper is very tall, yes, but it's also really skinny. I remember either Russ or Paul already saying they don't want to make it taller, but will likely just bulk it up a bit. Same goes for BK, I think.

[Snowbluff]

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.

Having it standard like structure and armor points would be great... oh wait.

You know, it doesn't hold up. I wasn't really concerned for my crab trio, but I don't think even bothering with fixing a 7% difference matters and is just a HUGE waste of resources when they won't keep other things standard. I mean, like the elegance of "this tonnage of mech has so many HP," but choose keep it standard or not. Some mechs are worse than others. Some mech, the size difference are so small you won't generate any meaning change, waste effort. Sometimes the geometry will mean that being the "right size" will probably mean it's too easy to hit.

Ergo, universal changes are a waste. Thanks Bishop, you created an argument against it. I'm actually surprised you didn't think of this natural conclusion. It's so obvious I only had to think about in the 2 seconds that it was going to agree with you.

[Bishop Steiner]

Shadowomega1, on 05 April 2016 - 06:40 PM, said:

@Bishop their likely just going to make its size match its actual lore size. Mechs like the Nova are nearly the size of a Heavy but is a Medium in game. In the other Mechwarriors it was true the size of medium, my guess when making the model they likely didn't have a to scale human next to it for reference.

No, they are not "just making it match it's lore size".

Most mechs have no recorded lore size. They have specifically stated that they are using a volumetric sizing which has no issue with shape or body type. The only real flaw to volumetric scaling is one must assume a similar structural density. The thing is... in military vehicles, that's not much of an issue, as vehicles of a type and era all tend to have very similar density and design.

Snowbluff, on 05 April 2016 - 07:01 PM, said:

Having it standard like structure and armor points would be great... oh wait.

You know, it doesn't hold up. I wasn't really concerned for my crab trio, but I don't think even bothering with fixing a 7% difference matters and is just a HUGE waste of resources when they won't keep other things standard. I mean, like the elegance of "this tonnage of mech has so many HP," but choose keep it standard or not. Some mechs are worse than others. Some mech, the size difference are so small you won't generate any meaning change, waste effort. Sometimes the geometry will mean that being the "right size" will probably mean it's too easy to hit.

Ergo, universal changes are a waste. Thanks Bishop, you created an argument against it. I'm actually surprised you didn't think of this natural conclusion. It's so obvious I only had to think about in the 2 seconds that it was going to agree with you.

That makes even less sense than your belief we'll see the madcat mkII this year.

Bravo.

[LT. HARDCASE]

Revis Volek, on 05 April 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

Well then please explain to me IN YOUR OWN WORDS (since you get it so well) how its is so horribly flawed?

So all of a sudden 7% over the TOTAL VOLUME of the mech is a nerf? We havent even seen the change playout yet and you are crying about nerfs?

I cant speak on the Grasshopper but yea its tall so we will see how they go about that. Being tall isnt the end of the world, just means hill poking is out of its realm of capabilities with such low hardpoints. The mech is also pretty spindly and isnt the most robust mech out there.

But still, please explain how they are flawed. I dont questions systems that make sense and can be shown to.

To the bolded, well, yes. We're talking about objective nerfs here. There's no way you can make a mech into a larger target, and not consider it a nerf.

The system may only seem as flawed as the conclusions the devs have drawn from it. I said "flawed system of judgment", not that consulting volumetric scale itself is a flawed practice.

To surmise that mechs need to be resized, based solely on their volumetric scale, is an inherently flawed premise. They need to actually look at the Grasshopper and Crab, maybe even play them, and assess their current scale's gameplay balance. If their current sizes are not unbalanced or unfair, there's absolutely no reason to change them for the worse. That is why I say they are using flawed reasoning. Just going "by the numbers", without considering gameplay balance, is vacuous and shortsighted.

One needs only to ask, "Does this mech need to get worse?" I don't think anyone should look at these two mechs, and answer "yes".

And why are they even wasting time and money on mechs which are currently balanced, in their immediate state? Making the obviously oversized (Kit Fox, Catapult, Nova) smaller, is a completely different matter than what they've decided to do here.

p.s. - 7% may seem small, to you, but look at what 18% did to the Nova.

Chimera11, on 05 April 2016 - 06:48 PM, said:

You seem to assume that height = size, which is a very flawed idea.

A 50 tonner could be twice the height of an Atlas, but still undersized if it was incredibly thin.

The grasshopper is very tall, yes, but it's also really skinny. I remember either Russ or Paul already saying they don't want to make it taller, but will likely just bulk it up a bit. Same goes for BK, I think.

I'm not even thinking of height here.

Edited by LT. HARDCASE, 05 April 2016 - 07:07 PM.