413 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

Satan n stuff, on 08 May 2016 - 11:13 AM, said:

Apparently so, since you still haven't.

You have that one backwards too.

In fact, you haven't been right even once in this discussion. That must be frustrating for you. But totally not OUR problem. I can EXPLAIN it to you, but I can't UNDERSTAND it for you.

[Wintersdark]

Mcgral18, on 07 May 2016 - 10:58 AM, said:

If only PGI could chime in on a 20 page thread to spread information

hahaah lol that's likely.


I sorta get why they don't - not an excuse for them, mind, but the way they'll look at it - it doesn't matter what they say. They can't come in and say "Oh, it's just getting X% bigger" because the thread will instantly explode into dozens of people arguing about how that's wrong, etc, etc. It's not something they can just say and move on.

Because when they say "Mech X is changing by Y amount" everyone immediately puts them up against other current mechs to compare then rants about things, but it's useless to do that because all the current mechs are changing too.

edit: Before some halfwit rails on about how I'm defending them yada yada: I do think they'd do well to share more info, and I'm decidedly in the camp that they should. That so often issues could be avoided or towned down just by sharing a bit of infomation. I'm just saying the way they'll look at it, that's all - and while I do think they should share more, I've been around long enough to know that every single time they have, it's been a s&$#show because of people here.

You could figure it out, though, if you wanted. I would suspect, as you can open the model files, right? Can you get a volume calculation? I don't know anything about modeling myself, or what software you're using, but if you could, then it would just be a matter of checking the hunchback's volume (as it was apparently at the right scale), then scaling the Blackjack to 10% of the Hunchback's volume (being as it's 10% lighter).

Edited by Wintersdark, 08 May 2016 - 01:04 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Wintersdark, on 08 May 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

You could figure it out, though, if you wanted. I would suspect, as you can open the model files, right? Can you get a volume calculation? I don't know anything about modeling myself, or what software you're using, but if you could, then it would just be a matter of checking the hunchback's volume (as it was apparently at the right scale), then scaling the Blackjack to 10% of the Hunchback's volume (being as it's 10% lighter).

These models are dozens of parts placed together, and not solid objects.

This means you can't outright do the volume, as I understand (without filling in all the blank spots, that is).
Hollow point between the AC barrel and the housing? Not counted as volume (but can be a massive part of actual volume) unless it gets sealed off.

[ScarecrowES]

Mcgral18, on 08 May 2016 - 01:25 PM, said:

These models are dozens of parts placed together, and not solid objects.

This means you can't outright do the volume, as I understand (without filling in all the blank spots, that is).
Hollow point between the AC barrel and the housing? Not counted as volume (but can be a massive part of actual volume) unless it gets sealed off.

I think it's safe to assume they're NOT going to include variable geometry for weapons in the volume measurement. They're not part of the base volume of the mech model anyway - and aside from some barrels on a few weapons, almost all of the mass of the weapon is internal to the mech.

[Wintersdark]

Mcgral18, on 08 May 2016 - 01:25 PM, said:

These models are dozens of parts placed together, and not solid objects.

This means you can't outright do the volume, as I understand (without filling in all the blank spots, that is).
Hollow point between the AC barrel and the housing? Not counted as volume (but can be a massive part of actual volume) unless it gets sealed off.

I don't know enough about it to offer anything really useful (and am fine with waiting till June rather than the effort required to learn); but clearly PGI figured out a way to do it.

ScarecrowES, on 08 May 2016 - 01:34 PM, said:

I think it's safe to assume they're NOT going to include variable geometry for weapons in the volume measurement. They're not part of the base volume of the mech model anyway - and aside from some barrels on a few weapons, almost all of the mass of the weapon is internal to the mech.

yeah, I'd assume it would be base models without weaponry at all.

[Mcgral18]

ScarecrowES, on 08 May 2016 - 01:34 PM, said:

I think it's safe to assume they're NOT going to include variable geometry for weapons in the volume measurement. They're not part of the base volume of the mech model anyway - and aside from some barrels on a few weapons, almost all of the mass of the weapon is internal to the mech.

Then the Hunch 4Gs are going to get kinda shafted...
Hunch adds signigicant real estate

[ScarecrowES]

Mcgral18, on 08 May 2016 - 01:54 PM, said:

Then the Hunch 4Gs are going to get kinda shafted...
Hunch adds signigicant real estate

Well, the Hunchie is going to remain the size it is now. I suppose you can use that to determine whether or not it's getting the shaft. I think it'll be ok, personally. *shrug*

[Wintersdark]

ScarecrowES, on 08 May 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

Well, the Hunchie is going to remain the size it is now. I suppose you can use that to determine whether or not it's getting the shaft. I think it'll be ok, personally. *shrug*

I'd think that the parts of the models will count - the Hunchback hunch is there and the same size no matter what weapon is equipped. Same with the griffon shoulder launcher etc.

What I meant is barrels and such that are weapon specific.

[LT. HARDCASE]

Does anyone really trust PGI to balance with quirks? We're moving to a system that will be even more dependent on correct quirks, and that's pretty scary, given the past.

[ScarecrowES]

LT. HARDCASE, on 08 May 2016 - 04:24 PM, said:

Does anyone really trust PGI to balance with quirks? We're moving to a system that will be even more dependent on correct quirks, and that's pretty scary, given the past.

Why would it be MORE-dependent on quirks?

Look at the mechs that tend to only be workable with structure quirks NOW. There are not a lot of mechs that have structure or armor quirks now that would absolutely need them after the rescale - and many of the ones that probably still need them will need a lower degree than before the rescale.

You're not going to need to dole out large numbers of quirks to compensate for the size difference between mechs. If anything, I think you can say that once the rescales are done, quirks will no longer need to be used as a compensation too, and can now be used as a balancing tool. And really, that's absolutely what you want.

The thing is... we as a community are going to have to be honest with our feedback. We can't going around saying a 45-ton mech needs to be buffed because it's more squishy than a 55-ton mech. And we're going to have to make peace with the idea that certain mechs are going to go down more easily in certain scenarios. Within the first week the Ebon Jaguar, most players seemed to accept that it has a vulnerable center torso. We understood that this was because of the shape of the mech. We also understood that being somewhat squishy in the open was a fair price to trade for that mech's capabilities. We're going to have to be that reasonable and logical for all mechs.

[Davers]

Wintersdark, on 08 May 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

hahaah lol that's likely.


I sorta get why they don't - not an excuse for them, mind, but the way they'll look at it - it doesn't matter what they say. They can't come in and say "Oh, it's just getting X% bigger" because the thread will instantly explode into dozens of people arguing about how that's wrong, etc, etc. It's not something they can just say and move on.

Actually, they could just come in and say 'we are doing this. we feel this is correct. end of discussion' /thread. Instead we get the usual 20+ page thread with people arguing, rather pointlessly, since no one knows enough about the new rescale/power draw/ upcoming quirk changes to really address it.

[Rampancy]

Davers, on 09 May 2016 - 06:01 AM, said:

Actually, they could just come in and say 'we are doing this. we feel this is correct. end of discussion' /thread. Instead we get the usual 20+ page thread with people arguing, rather pointlessly, since no one knows enough about the new rescale/power draw/ upcoming quirk changes to really address it.

I mean they've said exactly that, which is what people are baselessly attacking them for.

How about we just accept that this community is toxic and will rage against any idea that PGI produces?

[ScarecrowES]

RampancyTW, on 09 May 2016 - 07:59 AM, said:

I mean they've said exactly that, which is what people are baselessly attacking them for.

How about we just accept that this community is toxic and will rage against any idea that PGI produces?

While admittedly we don't know squat about power draw... since that never got out of the concept stage... we do know a ton about rescales. Rampancy is exactly right here.

PGI has actually been very up-front about the process, and has done a lot to explain their methodology and results.

The problem is, they've never explained themselves all at one time and in one place through one form. To get an idea of what's going on, you have to gather up information from Twitter, instagram, the forums here, people's private correspondence, townhalls, etc.

Most people haven't paid that much attention. They don't know what's going on... so they think NOONE knows what's going on. And they don't want to listen to the people that actually do know.

Then you have people who will want to argue without understanding first. And that can be fine... most can be turned around without much effort.

And then worst of all, you have people that don't want to understand... who will rally against anything PGI might do if they can't see a direct benefit to them in it.

So yeah... PGI came in and explained what they were doing with rescales. What process they were using. Why they were using that process. What did and didnt work when using the process. How they were going to get around trouble spots. Efforts that they were going to put in to correct things they couldnt work around. What specific results they were getting from the process. Pictures of those results. Intention of release timetables and rebalancing.

They've said a crap load. Most people just don't care to listen.

[Wintersdark]

Davers, on 09 May 2016 - 06:01 AM, said:

Actually, they could just come in and say 'we are doing this. we feel this is correct. end of discussion' /thread. Instead we get the usual 20+ page thread with people arguing, rather pointlessly, since no one knows enough about the new rescale/power draw/ upcoming quirk changes to really address it.

That I'd what they should do in my opinion too.

But Russ basically said that in the town hall last time(with regards to complexity vs simplicity and where to draw the line), and look at all the butthurt folks crying about that now. So while I don't agree with their methods, I get How they feel about the whole thing.

Either way, they get 20+ page threads full of bitching and moaning.