413 replies to this topic

[Davers]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

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?

That people wanted the Centurion to be rescaled because it was too big only to have PGI say, no it's perfect and now all 50 ton mechs will be made Centurion sized is the opposite of what people wanted?

[Wintersdark]

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.

PGI considers Blackjacks to be UNDERSIZED, not oversized, but that is relative to the new volume:mass standard.

The blackjack is getting g a little bit bigger, but one must consider that in light of every other mech changing size too, so it'll still be one of the very smallest medium mechs (being 45t), larger only than 40t mechs. Which is reasonable.


Just keep in mind that these statements of "X is getting bigger/smaller" are in a world where EVERY mech is changing size.

[LT. HARDCASE]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

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?

Let me try to help you understand my point:

Yes, every mech in a given tonnage should be equally easy to shoot. I agree.

Making the Blackjack's durability as weak as the Vindicator, is a mistake. Why aren't they making the Vindicator's durability as strong as the Blackjack? Their scientific conclusions have lead them to nerf the entire 45 ton class, when it's a class that is on the verge of worthlessness.

How can one then judge their conclusion as anything but folly? That simple enough?

Edited by LT. HARDCASE, 30 April 2016 - 03:10 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 03:02 PM, said:

<snip>

Certainly balance will be changed. There's no doubt that changing the size of most mechs will upset the current status quo. But yes, we'd argue that the changes are necessary to finally give a proper position to balance from. It's a foundation upon which proper balance can be built, not the fix itself.

On the other hand, it will automatically have an impact on balance. The Nova, for instance, will automatically perform better immediately after resizing and will likely have to be dialed back. Some mechs will need to have additional quirks added, and some will have to have quirks removed.

Like I said earlier... we're turning a variable into a constant... we're removing size from the equation of balancing mechs against each other.

[Davers]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 03:08 PM, said:

PGI considers Blackjacks to be UNDERSIZED, not oversized, but that is relative to the new volume:mass standard.

The blackjack is getting g a little bit bigger, but one must consider that in light of every other mech changing size too, so it'll still be one of the very smallest medium mechs (being 45t), larger only than 40t mechs. Which is reasonable.


Just keep in mind that these statements of &quot;X is getting bigger/smaller&quot; are in a world where EVERY mech is changing size.

I find no comfort in your words.

[Wintersdark]

LT. HARDCASE, on 30 April 2016 - 03:07 PM, said:

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.

I'm sure they've considered the impact on gameplay.

It's going to be a bit of a meta shuffle. Mechs are going to get better/WORSE as a result, and often fairly arbitrarily (but predictably).

But at least afterwards, poor mechs problems won't include "too large". They'll just be poor geometry/limited hardpoints/whatever else.


A missed opportunity? Sure, in a perfect world.

But those of us in favour of volumetric scaling, we're in favour of it not because we trust PGI, but because we KNOW they'll **** it up if they try to scale for balance.

[Wintersdark]

LT. HARDCASE, on 30 April 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

Let me try to help you understand my point:

Yes, every mech in a given tonnage should be equally easy to shoot. I agree.

Making the Blackjack's durability as weak as the Vindicator, is a mistake. Why aren't they making the Vindicator's durability as strong as the Blackjack? Their scientific conclusions have lead them to nerf the entire 45 ton class, when it's a class that is on the verge of worthlessness.

How can one then judge their conclusion as anything but folly? That simple enough?

They ARE making the Vindicator more durable, it's shrinking fairly dramatically. Thus, the blackjack will be a bit less durable, the Vindicator substantially more durable.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't disagree with the assertations made that the "durability set point" should have been lower (thus more buff to vindi, less nerf to bj) but remember than everything else is changing too, so you can't compare future-BJ to present-other mechs.

[Pjwned]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 03:08 PM, said:

PGI considers Blackjacks to be UNDERSIZED, not oversized, but that is relative to the new volume:mass standard.

The blackjack is getting g a little bit bigger, but one must consider that in light of every other mech changing size too, so it'll still be one of the very smallest medium mechs (being 45t), larger only than 40t mechs. Which is reasonable.

Just keep in mind that these statements of "X is getting bigger/smaller" are in a world where EVERY mech is changing size.

FupDup, on 30 April 2016 - 03:03 PM, said:

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

I had a brain fart and meant undersized.

Quote

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

What, better quirks than they have now? I would hope it's just relatively better quirks (and even then I don't think any BJ variant needs quirks) after having its size stupidly increased because that would be a solution that wasn't ****, but I'm not expecting anything good from PGI.

Edited by Pjwned, 30 April 2016 - 03:40 PM.

[Ultimax]

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.

That this point is clearly lost on several posters is baffling - in a game where (ironically, aside from myself) many players constantly are upset about TTK, constantly upset about "pinpoint convergence" - where the developers themselves are adding +structure quirks out in droves to lengthen TTK & where they are working on a new mechanic to replace ghost heat except limit ALL weapon damage.

[FupDup]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:

They ARE making the Vindicator more durable, it's shrinking fairly dramatically. Thus, the blackjack will be a bit less durable, the Vindicator substantially more durable.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't disagree with the assertations made that the "durability set point" should have been lower (thus more buff to vindi, less nerf to bj) but remember than everything else is changing too, so you can't compare future-BJ to present-other mechs.

Did PGI actually say anywhere that they were making the Vindi "dramatically" smaller?

Because, based on the comparisons between the BJ and Vindi, it would seem that making the BJ bigger would just make it the same size as the Vindi is now. Thus, if they shrunk the Vindi while inflating the Beej, the Vindi would have a smaller target project than the Beej.

[Wintersdark]

Davers, on 30 April 2016 - 03:11 PM, said:

I find no comfort in your words.

Let me try it from the other direction, see if it makes you feel better:
"PGI is taking a comprehensive review of all the mechs and their current power level, as assessed by PGI balance and design staff and consulted with Top Units (you know, those Pro Players they usually consult for quirk passes?). The are taking all this valuable data, analysing it, and adjusting mech scales in problem chassis to improve their overall balance."

Does that make you feel comfortable? Do you think that would work out well?

Or do you think the end result would be: All the mechs are still randomly and wierdly sized, with lots of stand out "WTF where they thinking, why is this 55t mech larger than that 85t mech?", and we'd STILL have a balance situation exactly like now but with different mechs being stronger/weaker.

PGI *would* **** it up. Garaunteed. You'd have something absurd like the Blackjack getting smaller, the Awesome getting larger, and the Vindicator completely unchanged.



At least, this way, a 45t mech will be 45t mech sized, an 80t mech 80t sized.

Ultimax, on 30 April 2016 - 03:19 PM, said:

That this point is clearly lost on several posters is baffling - in a game where (ironically, aside from myself) many players constantly are upset about TTK, constantly upset about "pinpoint convergence" - where the developers themselves are adding +structure quirks out in droves to lengthen TTK & where they are working on a new mechanic to replace ghost heat except limit ALL weapon damage.

It's not a point lost on anyone, if you're paying attention.

[ScarecrowES]

LT. HARDCASE, on 30 April 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

Let me try to help you understand my point:

Yes, every mech in a given tonnage should be equally easy to shoot. I agree.

Making the Blackjack's durability as weak as the Vindicator, is a mistake. Why aren't they making the Vindicator's durability as strong as the Blackjack? Their scientific conclusions have lead them to nerf the entire 45 ton class, when it's a class that is on the verge of worthlessness.

How can one then judge their conclusion as anything but folly? That simple enough?

How is making pretty much the entire 45-ton class EXCEPT the Blackjack SMALLER somehow nerfing the 45-ton class?

Wouldn't the opposite be true? It seems like making most 45-ton mechs smaller would be a net BUFF to that class.

I think I'm beginning to see where you're coming from. You're a Blackjack pilot.

[Pjwned]

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

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.

The thing is I don't really trust PGI to not fudge their numbers (because they have consistently shown themselves to be lying hacks) or to pick a reference that actually makes any sense. If they can show that their numbers are sensible and consistent and the Blackjack actually is oversized then fine, otherwise they have zero credibility.

[Krivvan]

WolframMan, on 30 April 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

Gyroscopes can make just about anything stand up.

It's not just about balance. Square cube law means that the weight of the mechs and the surface area they stand on means that a lot of these mechs simply could not walk on many of the surfaces depicted in the game.

[ScarecrowES]

FupDup, on 30 April 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:

Did PGI actually say anywhere that they were making the Vindi "dramatically" smaller?

Because, based on the comparisons between the BJ and Vindi, it would seem that making the BJ bigger would just make it the same size as the Vindi is now. Thus, if they shrunk the Vindi while inflating the Beej, the Vindi would have a smaller target project than the Beej.

Profile vs. volume. Look at how massive that Vindi is in terms of volume compared to the Beej. And for that matter, the poor Shadowcat compared to the Beej. The midpoint for size of those 4 mechs is the Ice Ferret, BTW.

[Wintersdark]

FupDup, on 30 April 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:

Did PGI actually say anywhere that they were making the Vindi "dramatically" smaller?

Because, based on the comparisons between the BJ and Vindi, it would seem that making the BJ bigger would just make it the same size as the Vindi is now. Thus, if they shrunk the Vindi while inflating the Beej, the Vindi would have a smaller target project than the Beej.

They'll be the same size.

Different shapes, but the same size. That's the whole point. The Beej will have a slightly larger front profile than the Vindi, but a much smaller size profile, because the Vindi is thicker. But they'll be the same overall size.

[FupDup]

Krivvan, on 30 April 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

It's not just about balance. Square cube law means that the weight of the mechs and the surface area they stand on means that a lot of these mechs simply could not walk on many of the surfaces depicted in the game.

Another thing about the cube square law is the internal skeleton of mechs. Right now, every single mech has the same ratio for skeleton thickness. This number is either 5% of body mass for Endo-Steel or 10% of body mass for Standard Structure.

In real life, if a Hunchback's internal skeleton took up 5% of its total mass, an Atlas's internal skeleton should be much heavier than 5%. The skeleton has to become much proportionally larger to support all of that extra weight being pulled down by gravity.

Battletech's construction system breaks physics.

[Wintersdark]

Pjwned, on 30 April 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

The thing is I don't really trust PGI to not fudge their numbers (because they have consistently shown themselves to be lying hacks) or to pick a reference that actually makes any sense. If they can show that their numbers are sensible and consistent and the Blackjack actually is oversized then fine, otherwise they have zero credibility.

We have access to the 3D models. If they do "fudge" things, it'll be readily apparent and provable.

[FupDup]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 03:27 PM, said:

They'll be the same size.

Different shapes, but the same size. That's the whole point. The Beej will have a slightly larger front profile than the Vindi, but a much smaller size profile, because the Vindi is thicker. But they'll be the same overall size.

That didn't really answer the question.

Will the Vindi be made smaller than it is right now, yes or no? I don't mean "relatively" smaller, I mean "absolutely" smaller, as in a specific X amount of meters.

[Krivvan]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 02:52 PM, said:

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.

The Blackjack is one of the fastest firepower mediums in the game. The Vindicator is a pretty slow Medium. What are you even talking about?

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

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?

Profile is what matters there. NOT volume.