413 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

WolframMan, on 30 April 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

Just saying something with no basis is about the same as not saying anything.

Yes, that's why every rebalance effort made comes back to the same problem... the person/people responsible for such changes don't understand what they are doing.

[ScarecrowES]

FupDup, on 30 April 2016 - 02:25 PM, said:

You mentioned quirks, not me.

No, I'm not going to move on. This game doesn't have "asymmetric" balancing mechanisms such as different team sizes or BV to compensate for individual units being weaker.

Are you familiar with Starcraft? MWO is like trying to have a battle between 12 Zerglings and 12 Zealots. The Zerglings are supposed to be able to outnumber the Zealots for the same cost in order to beat them. When forced into having the same quantity, they lose their purpose.

In Starcraft, 1 Zealot beating 1 Zergling is completely fine because you can field enough Zerglings to blot out the sun and drown your enemy in an endless tide of bodies. We can't do that here, so having shitmechs here doesn't work.

True enough... hence the need to make sure that - in a game where we place great emphasis on the tonnage of a mech to balance it and to set up matchmaking - that the listed tonnage of a mech is actually reflected in the model.

All 45-tonners should be 45 tons. And all 45-tonners should have 10 tons'-worth of volume less than 55-tonners... and so on.

[Ultimax]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 02:20 PM, said:

45-ton mechs SHOULD be easy to kill, as they're at the low end of the medium-class tonnage scale, and they've transistioned out of high-speed platforms into medium-speed platforms, ALL 45-tons mechs should be squishy. In fact, 45-tonners should probably be the easiest mediums to kill overall. And interestingly, all 45-ton mechs ARE pretty easy to kill, except for the BlackJack.

Hence the BlackJack being an exception, not the rule.

You're working from a flawed, what I assume is lore based, perspective.

That has been one of the major sources of balance failure for this game's whole life.


If they are under-gunned, and easy to kill then they are useless and serve no purpose and will not be played.


Which is exactly the state of the Vindicator now, and the state of the Black Jack before it received quirks (with the Vindicator being clearly worse).



The Black Jack should become the rule, not the exception. The other 45 tonners should match it - or they will just be abandoned as obsolete wastes of tonnage.

Edited by Ultimax, 30 April 2016 - 02:33 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

FupDup, on 30 April 2016 - 01:10 PM, said:

Scaling based on TROs would result in mechs being scaled just as poorly as they are now, or perhaps even worse.

Why? Would it make Light mechs, light mech sized and not power armor sized?

[LT. HARDCASE]

Deathlike, on 30 April 2016 - 02:27 PM, said:

Yes, that's why every rebalance effort made comes back to the same problem... the person/people responsible for such changes don't understand what they are doing.

I seriously can't believe that I'm actually discussing this with people who are adamant that PGI isn't screwing this up, like they've done everything else.

Where is this blind faith suddenly springing from, someone please tell me.

[FupDup]

LordKnightFandragon, on 30 April 2016 - 02:38 PM, said:

Why? Would it make Light mechs, light mech sized and not power armor sized?

Power armor looks like this:


Or this:




MWO light mechs aren't anywhere even remotely close to that size.

Edited by FupDup, 30 April 2016 - 02:41 PM.

[Davers]

What I don't like is bad mechs like the Commando that we already know is too small for it's tonnage will just get worse.

[ScarecrowES]

LT. HARDCASE, on 30 April 2016 - 02:27 PM, said:

I don't care about being right or wrong, first off.

I'm simply asking questions that come down to, "What if PGI is wrong?" What's hard or stubborn about that?

What if the BJ is right sized, and the others are too big? Is it wrong to question why they'd make the BJ bigger, instead of making the others smaller? Can either one of you say, straight-faced, that the Vindicator is currently at a good size? Making the Blackjack as big, and as easy to kill doesn't bring balance, because the ease of killing the Vindicator isn't balanced right now. Sure a Vindicator pilot might say, "Welcome to the club friend!", but isn't it better for the game, to instead make the Vindicator better?

There's nothing OBJECTIVE about what PGI is doing, because they just might have chosen the wrong scientific method, or.... they may be drawing flawed conclusions from the data. That's all I and others are saying. Do you understand? Can you see from the other side? If they've chosen the wrong density/volume for 45 tons, then their application will be flawed across the board.

So, we know some mechs are getting smaller (increasing their TTK), while other mechs are getting larger (decreasing their TTK). I'm simply against decreasing the TTK of ANY mech in the game; the fact that these mechs getting nerfed aren't amazing or top tier to begin with, just makes it worse. I don't even pilot BJs extensively, at all really. This isn't me campaigning for a mech I like to play.

tl;dr = If they are scaling to the wrong reference, then the results will be flawed. The 45 and 80 ton examples are just the easiest to make, because we already know that the Vindicator and Victor are too big. To make the Blackjack and Zeus also "too big", instead of the Vindicator and Victor "not too big" is a decision born of flawed conclusions. This is not subjective, because making a mech bigger objectively makes it easier to pick apart, and thus easier to kill.

B-but PGI is using SCIENCE, is not a free pass for them to make bad decisions.

I think you're having difficulty understanding what's going on here...

It doesn't matter what reference point you choose. If you choose the Nova, for instance, and rescale everything based on the Nova's current volume equaling 50 tons, the results will be no different than selecting any other mech for reference and scaling the remaining mechs based on that. Nova, Vindicator, BlackJack, Awesome, it doesn't matter. The results will end up exactly the same in terms of how the various mechs relate to each other.

The only difference will be the exact dimensions you end up with. If you use the Nova for a reference, being that it has the largest oversize discrepancy between volume and weight, every single one of your mechs are going to get bigger, by up to 18% for mechs that are already pretty close to the right size. Every mech is going to end up a LOT bigger. And your average mech size will move up. If you chose a mech that is massively UNDERSIZED for your reference, every single mech you get will be smaller, and your average mech size will move down. But relative to each other, the results are the same for mech size regardless of which mech you use as reference - or even if you pick an arbitrary point to reference.

It doesn't seem you're understanding this. There's literally no difference between scaling all mechs to fit the BlackJack and scaling all mechs to fit the Vindicator. Either way, the result is that the Vindicator and BlackJack both end up having 45-tons of volume and being roughly the same size (as humanoid mechs their frontal torso profiles should be similar).

[True Arrow]

FupDup, on 30 April 2016 - 02:25 PM, said:

You mentioned quirks, not me.

No, I'm not going to move on. This game doesn't have "asymmetric" balancing mechanisms such as different team sizes or BV to compensate for individual units being weaker.

Are you familiar with Starcraft? MWO is like trying to have a battle between 12 Zerglings and 12 Zealots. The Zerglings are supposed to be able to outnumber the Zealots for the same cost in order to beat them. When forced into having the same quantity, they lose their purpose.

In Starcraft, 1 Zealot beating 1 Zergling is completely fine because you can field enough Zerglings to blot out the sun and drown your enemy in an endless tide of bodies. We can't do that here, so having shitmechs here doesn't work.

I'll start by saying that I mentioned quirks because people are mixing scale with balance. My point is that people shouldn't be advocating that mechs be made smaller just so they become better. Other than that, you're exactly right. There should be more lighter mechs than heavier ones. WW2 would've been rather different if the Germans had as many King Tigers as the U.S. had Shermans. It's unrealistic to think that PGI will change the game in such a big way, changing the numbers of different classes in matches. Unfortunately that would be the first step towards properly balancing the game.

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 02:40 PM, said:

I think you're having difficulty understanding what's going on here...

It doesn't matter what reference point you choose. If you choose the Nova, for instance, and rescale everything based on the Nova's current volume equaling 50 tons, the results will be no different than selecting any other mech for reference and scaling the remaining mechs based on that. Nova, Vindicator, BlackJack, Awesome, it doesn't matter. The results will end up exactly the same in terms of how the various mechs relate to each other.

The only difference will be the exact dimensions you end up with. If you use the Nova for a reference, being that it has the largest oversize discrepancy between volume and weight, every single one of your mechs are going to get bigger, by up to 18% for mechs that are already pretty close to the right size. Every mech is going to end up a LOT bigger. And your average mech size will move up. If you chose a mech that is massively UNDERSIZED for your reference, every single mech you get will be smaller, and your average mech size will move down. But relative to each other, the results are the same for mech size regardless of which mech you use as reference - or even if you pick an arbitrary point to reference.

It doesn't seem you're understanding this. There's literally no difference between scaling all mechs to fit the BlackJack and scaling all mechs to fit the Vindicator. Either way, the result is that the Vindicator and BlackJack both end up having 45-tons of volume and being roughly the same size (as humanoid mechs their frontal torso profiles should be similar).

It seems like you're the one having trouble here. The point is you shouldn't arbitrarily decide a mech to base other mechs off of. There should be a legitimate basis, such as estimated mass.

Edited by WolframMan, 30 April 2016 - 02:44 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

LT. HARDCASE, on 30 April 2016 - 02:38 PM, said:

I seriously can't believe that I'm actually discussing this with people who are adamant that PGI isn't screwing this up, like they've done everything else.

Where is this blind faith suddenly springing from, someone please tell me.

It's coming from Russ stating in last night's Town Hall that nobody knows better how to make this game than PGI.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 30 April 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

It's coming from Russ stating in last night's Town Hall that nobody knows better how to make this game than PGI.

It's almost as if everybody except PGI is...

...

...

...on an island.

[LT. HARDCASE]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 02:40 PM, said:

I think you're having difficulty understanding what's going on here...

It doesn't matter what reference point you choose. If you choose the Nova, for instance, and rescale everything based on the Nova's current volume equaling 50 tons, the results will be no different than selecting any other mech for reference and scaling the remaining mechs based on that. Nova, Vindicator, BlackJack, Awesome, it doesn't matter. The results will end up exactly the same in terms of how the various mechs relate to each other.

The only difference will be the exact dimensions you end up with. If you use the Nova for a reference, being that it has the largest oversize discrepancy between volume and weight, every single one of your mechs are going to get bigger, by up to 18% for mechs that are already pretty close to the right size. Every mech is going to end up a LOT bigger. And your average mech size will move up. If you chose a mech that is massively UNDERSIZED for your reference, every single mech you get will be smaller, and your average mech size will move down. But relative to each other, the results are the same for mech size regardless of which mech you use as reference - or even if you pick an arbitrary point to reference.

It doesn't seem you're understanding this. There's literally no difference between scaling all mechs to fit the BlackJack and scaling all mechs to fit the Vindicator. Either way, the result is that the Vindicator and BlackJack both end up having 45-tons of volume and being roughly the same size (as humanoid mechs their frontal torso profiles should be similar).

Oh I understand. You're arguing from a position of real life relativity, while I'm talking about gameplay, which is the only basis that matters in the end. If the decision makes the gameplay worse, how is it not a bad decision?

Sir we're talking about shooting at PIXELS here. Making something more pixels is literally no difference? If you choose a
reference point that scales every mech larger, every mech gets easier to shoot, easier to kill.

There is no "mixing scale with balance." When shooting at pixels, SCALE IS BALANCE. They are forever married.

Edited by LT. HARDCASE, 30 April 2016 - 02:53 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Ultimax, on 30 April 2016 - 02:32 PM, said:

You're working from a flawed, what I assume is lore based, perspective.

That has been one of the major sources of balance failure for this game's whole life.


If they are under-gunned, and easy to kill then they are useless and serve no purpose and will not be played.


Which is exactly the state of the Vindicator now, and the state of the Black Jack before it received quirks (with the Vindicator being clearly worse).



The Black Jack should become the rule, not the exception. The other 45 tonners should match it - or they will just be abandoned as obsolete wastes of tonnage.

So... 45-ton mechs. There's a 10-ton difference between a 45-tonner and the top of the medium scale at 55-tons. That's 10 ton's-worth of lost armor and structure. So 45-ton mechs are automatically weaker than the larger mechs that are available in the medium class. Now all mechs make various trade-offs between speed and firepower. Most mechs in the 40-ton range work on a light mech philosophy of speed over firepower. Some 45-tonners also have this philosophy... a la Shadowcat. The Blackjack focuses on firepower over speed.

This means, not only does it have weaker armor and internals than its 55-ton cousins, it's also trading away the advantage of speed to increase it's firepower capability. Without that speed, a 45-tonner will not be able to avoid getting out of trouble, and won't have the survivability to stay long in a straight-up fight.

So yeah... a 45-tonner SHOULD be easier to kill than a 55-tonner. And moreover, a SLOW 45-tonner should be easier to kill than a FAST 45-tonner. The Blackjack is a slow 45-tonner. As is the Vindicator, really. So the Blackjack SHOULD be easy to kill. And by virtue of the fact that most 40-tonners pack speed, slow 45-tonners should be the least survivable medium mechs.

That's not TT, that's MWO. The Blackjack, because of how it's set up, should be a glass cannon. The fact that it's not, and the rest of the slow 45-tonners are, tells us the Blackjack is the odd-man-out.

[Vossiewulf]

FupDup, on 30 April 2016 - 09:46 AM, said:

Actually, in the "lore" many mechs are sized incredibly dumbly. The famous Clan Omnimech scale chart is the worst example of this.

What are some of the sins here?
-60 ton mech being the same size as a 75 ton mech
-85 ton mech being the same size as a 100 ton mech
-80 ton mech being the same size as a 95 ton mech
-All of the heavies rivaling the 100-ton assault in size
-20 ton mech being almost the same size as a 100 ton mech

Any of PGI's modelers can tell you that's the LEAST of the problems with the "lore" designs. Go look at the artwork, one leg way longer than other, impossible joints, MC Escher crap where he changed his mind from one side of the mech to the other, the one thing I always felt certain of what that the artist(s) responsible had zero engineering training.

I know, as I've had my own adventures trying to turn the nonsense 2D into real models.

[ScarecrowES]

LT. HARDCASE, on 30 April 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

Oh I understand. You're arguing from a position of real life relativity, while I'm talking about gameplay, which is the only basis that matters in the end. If the decision makes the gameplay worse, how is it not a bad decision?

Sir we're talking about shooting at PIXELS here. Making something more pixels is literally no difference? If you choose a
reference point that scales every mech larger, every mech gets easier to shoot, easier to kill.

There is no "mixing scale with balance." When shooting at pixels, SCALE IS BALANCE. They are forever married.

Soooo... every mech in a given tonnage range being equally easy to shoot is... not balance? I'm super confused what you're arguing here, because you're shifting your argument back and forth and don't seem to have any real point, and it's frustrating. What exactly is your position here?

[Pjwned]

I have to wonder if PGI actually considers Blackjacks to be undersized (which is stupid to think) or if they're "undersized" for how good they are because of their completely overdone quirks.

Edited by Pjwned, 30 April 2016 - 03:13 PM.

[Wintersdark]

LT. HARDCASE, on 30 April 2016 - 02:38 PM, said:

I seriously can't believe that I'm actually discussing this with people who are adamant that PGI isn't screwing this up, like they've done everything else.

Where is this blind faith suddenly springing from, someone please tell me.

There's no faith.

What's happening is you have two general arguments here, and people are conflating the two.

There's the folks who think this is a change meant to improve balance. These people see the methodology as flawed, because while it'll certainly change balance, it'll change balance the way locked internals in kmnimechs change balance: arbitrarily. Someechs will get better, some worse, and it will not always be reflective of the current mech effectiveness/ideal mech effectiveness. These people tend to not understand why the next group really wants the mechs to be "the right size" relative to each other.

The other discussion is that mechs should be the correct size for their tonnage, because that's what makes sense. Not because that's best for balance, but because it's absurd that tiny mechs weigh more than large mechs, that mediums are as large/bulky as assaults. These people also care about balance - we ALL care about balance - but they want balancing to happen after mechs are correctly sized for their mass. This for two reasons.

1) Fluff and realism, as explained already
2) The understanding that if PGI arbitrarily scales mechs for balance purposes that the current situation (Vindicator, for example) will get WORSE because PGI will never get it right anyways. PGI will be rescaling mechs They feel are poor "off the cuff" so to speak to try to improve them, and they'll fail horribly. May as well not even bother. End result, mechs are still wierd sizes and balance is still shite.

Thus, the feeling is that making all the mechs the same density, the same volume per ton of mass(with remodelling where necessary), is the one way PGI can handle scaling without making things so much worse.

Nobody thinks making them all the same volume:ton will balance anything. It'll just remove a problem IE: the Vindicator won't be too big for its weight, but it'll still suck for other reasons. Those other reasons can be addressed, but at least it's not too big for its weight.

The spider is mentioned. Yes, the ACH will be better than the Spider. It is now, and it will remain so. You could shrink the Spider, but it'll STILL be worse than the ACH for numerous reasons. The Spider is going to need a lot of help to be balanced with an ACH, but at least it won't be cartoonishly large in comparison (see:Vindicator vs. Blackjack currently).

[FupDup]

Pjwned, on 30 April 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

I have to wonder if PGI actually considers Blackjacks to be oversized (which is stupid to think) or if they're "oversized" for how good they are because of their completely overdone quirks.

Right now the position that PGI holds is being "under" sized, not over sized.

Also, if we assume that PGI holds true to its word, then mechs that get larger will get better quirks. This means the Beej.

[ScarecrowES]

Pjwned, on 30 April 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

I have to wonder if PGI actually considers Blackjacks to be oversized (which is stupid to think) or if they're "oversized" for how good they are because of their completely overdone quirks.

They're undersized because the density rating PGI chose to determine what given volume equals what tonnage has shown that the Blackjack's current volume is lower than its listed tonnage. Just as the Vindicator's volume is too large for its listed tonnage.

PGI isn't "considering" anything. They just picked a reference are are scaling to that reference. There's no thought here to the balance of the Blackjack relative to other mechs... it's just numbers plugged into a math equation.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 30 April 2016 - 03:06 PM.

[LT. HARDCASE]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 03:05 PM, said:

They're oversized because the density rating PGI chose to determine what given volume equals what tonnage has shown that the Blackjack's current volume is lower than its listed tonnage. Just as the Vindicator's volume is too large for its listed tonnage.

PGI isn't "considering" anything. They just picked a reference are are scaling to that reference. There's no thought here to the balance of the Blackjack relative to other mechs... it's just numbers plugged into a math equation.

And the bolded is the crux of this entire discussion! Once again, PGI is making decisions with huge ramifications, without considering anything, relative to the effects on gameplay.

Thank you, we are all now on the same page.