413 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

FupDup, on 30 April 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

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.

They've said the Vindi is too large, so yes, it'll be smaller than it is right now. We don't know amounts, of course. We'll see come June.

The BJ will be larger, too. But remember, these are potentially very small steps - if the Beej is getting 1% larger, it's not even going to be particularly noticeable. It's not like you've just got "Current BJ size -> Current Vindi Size -> Current Orion Size" as your options.

[FupDup]

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

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?

Well, I guess it depends on which variants we're talking about?

The BJ 1-X has quite a good engine cap, but the average BJ engine cap is just 235. A top speed of 90.9 kph isn't very impressive for a 45-ton mech, especially considering that there are 75-ton heavies that go 87...

[Krivvan]

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.

It doesn't matter if mechs are changing size relative to each other. The firepower doesn't change, so what matters is absolute size, not relative size. If every mech in the game doubled their size, then the Lights get a huge nerf because of that.

[Wintersdark]

Krivvan, on 30 April 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

Profile is what matters there. NOT volume.

2 45t mechs.

If one has a larger front profile, it'll have a proportionally smaller side profile, because each will have the same volume.

The change isn't happening to make all the mechs equal, that's not the point, and nobody thinks it is. It's to make them all the correct size for their mass.

Krivvan, on 30 April 2016 - 03:33 PM, said:

It doesn't matter if mechs are changing size relative to each other. The firepower doesn't change, so what matters is absolute size, not relative size. If every mech in the game doubled their size, then the Lights get a huge nerf because of that.

But that isn't happening. The overall global average size is staying roughly the same.

[Krivvan]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:

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.

The only 45 tonner that suffers from size problems is the Vindicator though...

[FupDup]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:

2 45t mechs.

If one has a larger front profile, it'll have a proportionally smaller side profile, because each will have the same volume.

The change isn't happening to make all the mechs equal, that's not the point, and nobody thinks it is. It's to make them all the correct size for their mass.

The original reason that players asked for mech rescaling WAS to make mechs more equal.

If every mech was currently equally stronk, and if there weren't any bad mechs, there would be literally nothing to gain from rescaling any of them.

[Krivvan]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

If one has a larger front profile, it'll have a proportionally smaller side profile, because each will have the same volume.

Frontal profile is a bigger deal than side profile. The same reason why people front load their armor instead of evenly space them. To shoot the enemy you have to look at them.

[Krivvan]

Not to mention that the game balance variety in terms of mechs that have some use is actually pretty good right now. I just don't trust PGI to be able to make sweeping changes like this without taking years to get the variety back again. Especially when the whole point of this rescaling business was to help balance the few mechs that had those issues.

The Kit Fox, Commando, Mist Lynx, Centurion, Kintaro, Trebuchet, Vindicator, Cataphract, Catapult, Dragon, Orion IIC, Awesome, Highlander, Highlander IIC, Victor, and Zeus are the only mechs in the game that do not have a strong niche they have carved out for themselves.

[ScarecrowES]

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.

There's really nothing to fudge... you pick a density... could be based on something, could be completely arbitrary. Density is mass per volume. Then, your modeling software spits out the volume of your model. You take your chosen density and the volume of your model, pop them into an equation (elementary school math... or a TI-whatever calculator), and it spits out your model's weight Is that model weight the listed weight for the mech? No? is it too big or too small? Adjust up or down until it's the right weight.

Easy peasy.

Now, I don't know what PGI's process was for determining their ideal density. I'm inclined to think it wasn't arbitrary, as significantly changing model series size could have massive unintended consequences to map design, movement code, etc.

If it were me... I would have done a brief set of surveys to find the largest possible set of models with volumes within a few percent of the target tonnage at my chosen density. This would reduce the total number of mechs I'd have to modify to normalize all models. This both ensures that I won't have any problems with the mechs in their environment, and makes good business sense because it means I have less work to do, and can commit fewer resources to the task.

I assume PGI did that, because they actually stated that they looked hard at the models, volumes, etc before deciding on a full rescale project - the resulting models being found out of scale being many more than they expected. And having 8 or so models being within acceptable deviation, and quite a few more models being within a few percent of proper scale, tells me they chose a pretty good base reference point.

AND, the fact that they've gone on record as saying that quite a few mechs were getting minor remodels to change their volume, rather than a 1:1:1 rescale, tells me that they're putting a little more thinking into this process than just putting a one-size-fits-all solution into volume normalization. They're at least considering what impact changing the size of specific mechs will have on balance... for instance, the Grasshopper having it's limbs increased in volume, rather than merely making the mech taller and wider.

So yeah... I mean... if this were an entire subjective and perception-based process, like pretty much everything that came before, I'd be very worried. But because we're using hard math and reason, rather than just feels, I'm not nearly as worried as I might otherwise be.

[Krivvan]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 03:41 PM, said:

So yeah... I mean... if this were an entire subjective and perception-based process, like pretty much everything that came before, I'd be very worried. But because we're using hard math and reason, rather than just feels, I'm not nearly as worried as I might otherwise be.

This is exactly why I'm worried though. Because they have demonstrated that they aren't using hard math and reason in the right way. Demonstrated by the fact that they keep talking about volume.

[Davers]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:

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.


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

Somehow you think PGI setting an arbitrary standard per ton is somehow going to work out better than their arbitrary numbers for quirks.

If I remember right, PGI initially asked us, from a balance standpoint not an asctetic standpoint, what mechs needed rescaling. Then they turned around and are making the "problem mechs" like the Centurion the new 50 ton standard. Its like making all 80 ton mechs into Awesomes and saying it's ok because now that every 80 ton mech resembles a moving wall there is no more problems.

How will light mechs like the Commando (a mech neither ECM nor the new SRM meta can save) survive if they are made larger due to some randomly picked standard for size?

The rescale (much like quirks) was originally about helping out mechs that had flaws, And now once again, it's going to hit everything like an enraged monkey throwing feces.

But I liked the "Top Men" Raider's vibe you started your post with.

[Y E O N N E]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 03:12 PM, said:

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.

But it will include too large. The BJ needed quirks because it's too big for its speed and weight...and now it gets bigger.

[Wintersdark]

FupDup, on 30 April 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

The original reason that players asked for mech rescaling WAS to make mechs more equal.

If every mech was currently equally stronk, and if there weren't any bad mechs, there would be literally nothing to gain from rescaling any of them.

And this is the best way to adjust it, because otherwise (as per my posts above) they'd just **** it up even worse. After this, while balance won't be fixed, at least mechs won't be bad because they're sized wrong, they'll just be bad for other reasons. Shape will still be a concern, but not size. Mechs will be the correct size for their mass. Then balance can move forward with size at least addressed.

Because they AREN'T equal now. There's great mechs, poor mechs, all sorts, for all sorts of reasons. This will ensure that size at least isn't one of those reasons anymore, as each mech will be the correct overall size for it's tonnage. Mechs will require other changes, because nothing else is even.

This way is going to get, overall, better results than trying to wing it based on what PGI thinks needs to change.

Now, when addressing why, say, the Vindicator is bad, it won't be because "it's too big".

And generally speaking, their results are very predictable and ARE generally positive from a balance standpoint.

Vindicator? Shinking. It's one of the worse mechs in the game, and it's getting better.
Beej? Growing. It's one of the best mechs in the game, and it's getting (a little bit) worse.
Awesome? Shrinking (and being remodelled). It's terrible, and will get better.
Nova? Shrinking.

*shrugs*

Seems like it's going to work out pretty well. Not a magic fix, and counterproductive (in terms of raw balance) in places, but at least afterwards mechs will be the right size.

Krivvan, on 30 April 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

Frontal profile is a bigger deal than side profile. The same reason why people front load their armor instead of evenly space them. To shoot the enemy you have to look at them.

No argument.

[Pjwned]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

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

That doesn't mean PGI would fix it at that point.

[AEgg]

You know, you can't actually just pick a density and get sensible scaling by assuming that applies to every mech equally. An Orion with lots of empty space inside should be bigger on the oustide than a Timberwolf with all of it's equipment tightly packed together.

True, it doesn't really work out as well for balance that way, but nothing mechnaical is going to have a consistent density.

[ScarecrowES]

Krivvan, on 30 April 2016 - 03:33 PM, said:

It doesn't matter if mechs are changing size relative to each other. The firepower doesn't change, so what matters is absolute size, not relative size. If every mech in the game doubled their size, then the Lights get a huge nerf because of that.

Some light mechs are getting smaller, some getting larger... just like in every class. The average point, from what PGI has implied, hasn't really shifted, so as a complete set, mechs aren't really getting larger or smaller.

[Wintersdark]

Pjwned, on 30 April 2016 - 03:46 PM, said:

That doesn't mean PGI would fix it at that point.

No, but this is a totally useless line of reasoning. You could say exactly the same thing no matter what PGI was doing. Why even bother?

Anyways, why would the bother? To what end? It's a lot easier for them just to do it by the math (which is the stated goal) than to monkey with it out of some weird desire to piss people off.

AEgg, on 30 April 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

You know, you can't actually just pick a density and get sensible scaling by assuming that applies to every mech equally. An Orion with lots of empty space inside should be bigger on the oustide than a Timberwolf with all of it's equipment tightly packed together.

True, it doesn't really work out as well for balance that way, but nothing mechnaical is going to have a consistent density.

It works out better for balance if they DO have a consistent density.

If mechs have big empty spaces inside, they're being severely arbitrarily nerfed. But why would they? Who's to say which mechs should have more wasted space internally?

I'm personally way happier with 45t mechs being 45t sized, and 80t mechs being 80t sized, etc.

Edited by Wintersdark, 30 April 2016 - 03:57 PM.

[Davers]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

No, but this is a totally useless line of reasoning. You could say exactly the same thing no matter what PGI was doing. Why even bother?

Anyways, why would the bother? To what end? It's a lot easier for them just to do it by the math (which is the stated goal) than to monkey with it out of some weird desire to piss people off.


It works out better for balance if they DO have a consistent density.

If mechs have big empty spaces inside, they're being severely arbitrarily nerfed. But why would they? Who's to say which mechs should have more wasted space internally?

I'm personally way happier with 45t mechs being 45t sized, and 80t mechs being 80t sized, etc.

1. My Shadowhawks must have a lot of open space for the ammo in my foot to get to the launcher in my head.

2. No one is arguing that 80 ton mechs shouldn't be 80 ton sized. They are arguing that, for example, using the Zeus instead of the Awesome as the standard would be better.

[Pjwned]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

No, but this is a totally useless line of reasoning. You could say exactly the same thing no matter what PGI was doing. Why even bother?

The point was more that PGI has a track record of doing something, they halfass it and do a piss poor job, and then they don't do anything to fix it because they put in enough work in their minds.

Quote

Anyways, why would the bother? To what end? It's a lot easier for them just to do it by the math (which is the stated goal) than to monkey with it out of some weird desire to piss people off.

PGI has so little credibility in doing anything properly that I don't even know why they would do something like that and I still think it's not beyond them, hence why I want them to actually demonstrate why the Blackjack is undersized rather than just taking their word for not screwing it up.

[Wintersdark]

Davers, on 30 April 2016 - 04:09 PM, said:

2. No one is arguing that 80 ton mechs shouldn't be 80 ton sized. They are arguing that, for example, using the Zeus instead of the Awesome as the standard would be better.

They're not using the Awesome as the standard.

May as well wait and see. At least we won't have the Awesome vs Zeus issue we currently have anymore.