413 replies to this topic

[Juodas Varnas]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

Not all the mechs are seeing 1:1:1 rescaling.

Woah, really?

Does that mean the whole "Make Centurion Skinnier" thing is possible?
You better not be pulling my leg here, Clanner!

[ScarecrowES]

Juodas Varnas, on 30 April 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

Woah, really?

Does that mean the whole "Make Centurion Skinnier" thing is possible?
You better not be pulling my leg here, Clanner!

PGI has found that many mech models can't stand to be rescaled properly doing a simple 1:1:1 dimensional adjustment.

The Grasshopper is undersized, and PGI doesn't want to increase it's height, so it suggested it will fatten up its legs.

Both the Direwolf and Warhawk are oversized, but simple scaling won't work for those either so they're getting minor remodels... probably to adjust torso geometry.

However, the Centurion is less than 2% off from it's correct volume... I think it was a little over 1%, which is negligible. So the only way we're getting Skinny Centurion is if they increase the volume in other ways... make it taller, etc.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 30 April 2016 - 10:51 AM.

[Juodas Varnas]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 10:51 AM, said:

So the only way we're getting Skinny Centurion is if they increase the volume in other ways... make it taller, etc.

I'd be ok with that.
Centurion was always a tall and skinny mech anyway.

[Wintersdark]

Juodas Varnas, on 30 April 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

Woah, really?

Does that mean the whole "Make Centurion Skinnier" thing is possible?
You better not be pulling my leg here, Clanner!

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, sorry.

But yeah, they've talked about how a bunch of mechs are seeing actual remodelling, not just linear scaling, to get to the correct volume because there are several mechs where linear scaling isn't going to work.

The Awesome was listed as an early example there.

[Juodas Varnas]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, sorry.

Sometimes, i'm not sure myself, if i'm sincere or sarcastic.

[Ultimax]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, sorry.

But yeah, they've talked about how a bunch of mechs are seeing actual remodelling, not just linear scaling, to get to the correct volume because there are several mechs where linear scaling isn't going to work.

The Awesome was listed as an early example there.

That will be a bit better then, remodeling is definitely need.

[Wintersdark]

Ultimax, on 30 April 2016 - 10:46 AM, said:

The size, shape and placement of hitboxes all effect balance.


Total volume alone is insufficient dealing with idiosyncratic designs.

This isn't being done to improve balance. It's being done to remove scale as a factor - things will be the correct size for their weight. As I said, in reality mechs would vary a bit in density, but ultimately, realistically, volume:mass should be pretty damn consistent unless you've got mechs with big empty boxes, but that seems pretty silly.

This rescaling pass isn't a magic panacea of Balance, and I'm sure nobody (at least, nobody with a couple brain cells to rub together) is thinking it's going to magically fix balance. It's just removing scale as an issue. No more mechs that are released with totally stupid sizes.

---

"All mechs should be smaller"

Whatever. You can argue about the scale "centerpoint" till your blue in the face.

How big should mechs be(as a whole, not specific mechs), overall? I don't know and honestly I don't care much. They're as big as they are going to be in game, and that isn't going to change. Whether it's "correct" or not is open to endless, completely fruitless debate. It's a thought exercise and nothing more.

PGI has already said they're just adjusting relative sizes.

[Cy Mitchell]

I am beginning to become as pessimistic (salty? Is that what you guys call it?) as some of you but I can see that Mech scaling is a huge problem in this game that needs to be addressed. As long as they pick one "right sized" Mech as a reference and then use total volume (Mass) as a steadfast metric for scaling every other Mech to the appropriate relative size then it is a fair and IMO much superior system than the hodgepodge mess that we have in game now. That will mean that every other Mech is now "right sized" too. "Right sized" may be arbitrary but as long as it is enforced consistently then it will not matter because every Mech will be based on the same frame of reference. There has to be no exceptions to the rule.

I am sure that there will be a lot of complaining when someone's favorite Mech suddenly becomes a bigger target but when is there not someone complaining in this game? I may even shed a tear or two myself but I will get over it.

[Wintersdark]

Ultimax, on 30 April 2016 - 10:58 AM, said:

That will be a bit better then, remodeling is definitely need.

Absolutely. Many just won't scale linearly right, for the reason shown above with the cube example. That's why the Direwolf can't just be shrunk. The Awesome definitely can't.


What I'm saying here is basically, we've got to wait and see, because we don't have nearly enough information to even theorize.

Sizes are only relevant really when compared to each other, and everything is changing. Some mechs are seeing non-linear scaling or even outright remodelling. Saying "making X bigger/smaller" is a problem, or that "Y is already the correct size" is pointless when everything else is changing.

[Ultimax]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

This isn't being done to improve balance. It's being done to remove scale as a factor

It should be done to improve balance, because it is directly related to one of the most critical aspects of this game's combat.


Mech size is intrinsically linked to survivability, and they have been harping on how they want to improve TTK.


It would be a massive mistake for them to not take this as a balance issue, a fundamental balance issue, and use all of this work they are doing to scale mechs down.



It's not going to "remove scale" as a factor in terms of the total global impact on all mechs.

Smaller mechs have correspondingly smaller hitboxes, which are harder to target. It's that simple.

Not recognizing that would be a failure, and instead just erroneously think they are removing mech volume differences from mech to mech is the only item on the table. That's short sighted.

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

How big should mechs be(as a whole, not specific mechs), overall? I don't know and honestly I don't care much. They're as big as they are going to be in game, and that isn't going to change.

Saying you don't care means you don't care about game balance, it means you don't care about TTK.

This is a chance to improve TTK almost universally for all mechs, without needing to nerf hammer weapon systems, or tech bases or invent a new Ghost Heat 2.0 or create a system of quirks that PGI has repeatedly shown they are unable to logically design or properly manage.


This mech rescale could easily the most important balance factor of the last few years - but only if PGI recognizes the opportunity and does it well.

Edited by Ultimax, 30 April 2016 - 11:19 AM.

[Kubernetes]

The Spider must weigh 5 tons.

[STEF_]

Kubernetes, on 30 April 2016 - 11:18 AM, said:

The Spider must weigh 5 tons.

yea, it will be hilarious when we'll have spiders slightly the size of a BJ

(and 2 hardpoints...OP!!!)

gg

[Chimera_]

Stefka Kerensky, on 30 April 2016 - 11:20 AM, said:

yea, it will be hilarious when we'll have spiders slightly the size of a BJ

(and 2 hardpoints...OP!!!)

gg

To be fair, they've said they'll make (proportionally) tall mechs thicker rather than taller. Spider will probably just have to eat a few hundred burgers and get a nice 'ol belly going.

[ScarecrowES]

The more variables you can turn into constants, when talking about balance, the better.

Rescaling all mechs turns a variable into a constant. Once we have all mechs appropriately sized for their volume, THEN we can determine if those mechs need quirks to be competitive. If you try to balance without a baseline first, It's no different than trying to hit the bullseye on a dartboard while it's jiggering all over the place. Getting it right becomes more a factor of luck than skill, and you'll fail more often than not.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 30 April 2016 - 11:35 AM.

[DAYLEET]

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

Tabletop's scaling is really, really broken beyond any form of salvaging.

Isnt mass based on armor slab on the mech? Meaning size is of little importance? Ofcourse id rather have a balance game than one that makes sense but size does not equal mass.

Talking about under-sized... I was in my Treb yesterday and at the end of a game i get hugged by a fat weapon-less Locust. As i was looking down at it i realised that it was a Marauder lol. It certainly was FAT for a locust but damn it's small for being the top end of heavies at 75Tons. (cue the guy that says it's long).

So i got me 2 new Marauder yesterday, awesome ride.

I would like all most mech reduced in size, let the hitbox be a quirk rather than have + structure and armor quirks.

Edited by DAYLEET, 30 April 2016 - 11:40 AM.

[Mcgral18]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 11:35 AM, said:

The more variables you can turn into constants, when talking about balance, the better.

Rescaling all mechs turns a variable into a constant. Once we have all mechs appropriately sized for their volume, THEN we can determine if those mechs need quirks to be competitive. If you try to balance without a baseline first, It's no different than trying to hit the bullseye on a dartboard while it's jiggering all over the place. Getting it right becomes more a factor of luck than skill, and you'll fail more often than not.

The amount of quirks you'd need to give the Spider to compete with the Cheetah (cXL, TWICE the potential firepower, similar speed, similar effective jumping) is pretty obscene (especially on the 5V side) if they're to be essentially the same size.
Spider is currently a bit slimmer, meaning it occasionally gets hit less.


The same goes for any mech of the same tonnage, but one is far better than the other. Quirks can offset that...but that isn't always the best route.

[ScarecrowES]

Mcgral18, on 30 April 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:

The amount of quirks you'd need to give the Spider to compete with the Cheetah (cXL, TWICE the potential firepower, similar speed, similar effective jumping) is pretty obscene (especially on the 5V side) if they're to be essentially the same size.
Spider is currently a bit slimmer, meaning it occasionally gets hit less.


The same goes for any mech of the same tonnage, but one is far better than the other. Quirks can offset that...but that isn't always the best route.

Short of reducing each weight class to a single humanoid-type mech, it really IS the best route. It's the most objective way to set a baseline to balance from when we're talking about dozens of mechs of every size and shape under the sun.

[Y E O N N E]

This is why you don't use volume.

The BJ has relatively little geometry in the way of surface detailing compared to some of these other 'Mechs and it doesn't have arms...so of course it will have less volume.

If we look at silhouettes, like we're supposed to, it's fine.

[ScarecrowES]

Yeonne Greene, on 30 April 2016 - 11:50 AM, said:

This is why you don't use volume.

The BJ has relatively little geometry in the way of surface detailing compared to some of these other 'Mechs and it doesn't have arms...so of course it will have less volume.

If we look at silhouettes, like we're supposed to, it's fine.

Your bias is showing.

Because of volumetric scaling, most mechs that are being rescaled are actually shrinking in size. Including the vast majority of mechs the community identified as being particularly big offenders like the Nova, Catapult, Awesome, Warhawk, etc. Volumetric measurements showed the Nova was 18% off from it's real size, at 62 tons.

It just so happens that a lot of the rest of the perception certain members of the community has is flat out wrong... like with the BlackJack. You have every right to say there is a volume discrepancy between the Vindicator and BlackJack. But chosing how those two mech are normalized isn't up to us. The end result will be that 45-ton mechs will look like 45-ton mechs. Some mechs will go up, some will go down to make that happen.

But again, what is the assertion that the Blackjack is the "right" size based on? Compared to what? Certainly not compared to other mechs in its class. So, since most of the mechs you might compare the BJ to are changing in size (only a small number of mechs aren't changing), wouldn't our perception of the relative size of those mechs also change?

Edited by ScarecrowES, 30 April 2016 - 12:03 PM.

[Deathlike]

In my mind, Russ will use the 55-ton Kintaro as the staple 55-tonner reference.

That means... preemptive Doomcrow nerf.