413 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Krivvan, on 30 April 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

I would like to know where this all went from "some mechs have balance problems because of their scale" to "we should rescale all the mechs because I feel like they're wrong or something?"

The whole point from the start was to rescale a few problem mechs.

And on that note, the statements about the rescaling being "mathematically perfect" are ridiculous when it's volume that they're talking about. Volume is not what is important. What is important is frontal and side profile surface area.

A lot of people have forgotten this, so I'll bump this quote in a futile effort to trigger a memory recall.


People didn't complain about the Catapult's size because it was the "incorrect volume," people complained about the Catapult's size because this size made it too easy to kill.

People didn't complain about the Nova's size because it was the "incorrect volume," people complained about the Nova's size because this size made it too easy to kill.

People didn't complain about the Kit Fox's size because it was the "incorrect volume," people complained about the Kit Fox's size because this size made it too easy to kill.

People didn't complain about the Vindicator's size because it was the "incorrect volume," people complained about the Vindicator's size because this size made it too easy to kill.


Oh look, there's a trend here...

[True Arrow]

Deathlike, on 30 April 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

Let's be clear here.. the BJ should actually be the 45-ton standard bearer. It's every other 45 tonner that's poorly scaled... mostly the Vindicator (although its hardpoints is what fails it most) and the Ice Fridge Ferret.

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

Edited by WolframMan, 30 April 2016 - 01:47 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

I do not really understand what those that want the Blackjack to stay the same size and have the other Mechs scaled to it think it will accomplish. The outcome will be exactly the same in reference to the other Mechs in the game. It does not matter which Mech is the "right" sized Mech if every Mech in the game is adjusted to it. They will all be relatively the "right" size in the end. The only possible advantage of choosing a Mech on the small side as "right" as opposed to choosing one on the large side as "right" would be the relationship of Mech size to the surrounding environment. If you go small then it would be easier to hide behind that rock or building for everyone. If you go big then the rock or building will not hide you as well.

[True Arrow]

FupDup, on 30 April 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

A lot of people have forgotten this, so I'll bump this quote in a futile effort to trigger a memory recall.


People didn't complain about the Catapult's size because it was the "incorrect volume," people complained about the Catapult's size because this size made it too easy to kill.

People didn't complain about the Nova's size because it was the "incorrect volume," people complained about the Nova's size because this size made it too easy to kill.

People didn't complain about the Kit Fox's size because it was the "incorrect volume," people complained about the Kit Fox's size because this size made it too easy to kill.

People didn't complain about the Vindicator's size because it was the "incorrect volume," people complained about the Vindicator's size because this size made it too easy to kill.


Oh look, there's a trend here...

This is a big problem with the discussions about scale. Some people don't care about realism, they just want some mechs to have smaller hitboxes.

Edited by WolframMan, 30 April 2016 - 01:49 PM.

[Krivvan]

WolframMan, on 30 April 2016 - 01:48 PM, said:

This is a big problem with the discussions about scale. Some people don't care about realism, they just want some mechs to have smaller hitboxes.

Because this never was supposed to be about realism. The game has tons of far, far larger realism problems, like the fact that gravity is done entirely wrong. They drastically messed up the gravity in favor of (what they believe) improving gameplay.

If we're talking realism, most mechs in the game would not be able to stand up without collapsing much less walk. The very concept of battlemechs is already hilariously unrealistic that all this talk about realism is ridiculous.

All talks about "realistic scale" need to be framed within the context of what makes for better gameplay. Maybe all mediums being the Vindicator's size would make "sense," but if that makes all mediums too large and easily killed for what they are and decreasing cover situations then that's terrible for the gameplay which is what should be the only concern in the end.

Which also means that what's important isn't volume, it's surface area and where you see that surface area from.

Edited by Krivvan, 30 April 2016 - 01:58 PM.

[FupDup]

Krivvan, on 30 April 2016 - 01:52 PM, said:

Because this never was supposed to be about realism. The game has tons of far, far larger realism problems, like the fact that gravity is done entirely wrong. They drastically messed up the gravity in favor of (what they believe) improving gameplay.

If we're talking realism, most mechs in the game would not be able to stand up without collapsing much less walk. The very concept of battlemechs is already hilariously unrealistic that all this talk about realism is ridiculous.

For that matter, what kind of "realism" allows the Stalker to even stand up in the first place when its nose pulls its center of gravity higher and more frontal than the actual center of the mech's body?

[Davers]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 10:16 AM, said:

Mathematical relationship of volume for differently shaped objects... time for science, folks.

A cone, a sphere, and a cylinder... all with a base (circle) of the same radius, and thus the same surface area, and all the same height (effectively 2x the radius of the base, or 1x the diameter).



The relationship of the volume of those 3 objects is the ratio 1 : 2 : 3. The cone is a volume ratio of 1. The sphere's Volume is 2x the volume of the cone. The cylinder's volume is 3x the volume of the cone.

Let's correlate the volume to an actual unit of measure. Assume the cylinder volume with a given density equals 100 tons of weight (Atlas). That means the sphere represents 66.67 tons of weight (Catapult), and the cone represents 33.33 tons of weight (Raven).

All 3 objects have some of the same dimensions. The height is exactly the same, as are the dimensions of the base circle and the surface area of that circle. Looking at the height of the objects, you say, "wait, these are all the same size, because the cone is the same height as the cylinder." Or you say, "the cone is too big, because the base presents the same size target as the cylinder."

Again, math doesn't care what your perception is. This is the reality of volume.

Who would pilot anything but cone though?

Deathlike, on 30 April 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

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

That means... preemptive Doomcrow nerf.

First time the Kintaro was a staple of something besides bench warmer.

[FupDup]

WolframMan, on 30 April 2016 - 01:48 PM, said:

This is a big problem with the discussions about scale. Some people don't care about realism, they just want some mechs to have smaller hitboxes.

I think I know just the solution to make both parties happy.

You see, I actually have super secret knowledge of how to access more realism in video games. I know about the most realistic video game ever developed, and I'm going to share this secret with you. It has 100% flawlessly accurate physics, and the best graphics known to mankind. And it has no glitches or bugs, either! Would you believe me if I told you that it was even...free of any cost?

But you can't tell anybody, okay? I mean it!

Here it is, this is how you get the most realistic video game possible:

Spoiler

Go outside.

Edited by FupDup, 30 April 2016 - 02:03 PM.

[Krivvan]

Deathlike, on 30 April 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

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

That means... preemptive Doomcrow nerf.

The Doomcrow hasn't been the Doomcrow for quite a while now. It's superseded by a number of mediums better at doing specialized tasks than it. The only thing it can specialize in now is as a streak mech, but streak mech utility is limited now that pure SRM brawlers completely destroy them.

Edited by Krivvan, 30 April 2016 - 02:00 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

Krivvan, on 30 April 2016 - 01:40 PM, said:

I would like to know where this all went from "some mechs have balance problems because of their scale" to "we should rescale all the mechs because I feel like they're wrong or something?"

The whole point from the start was to rescale a few problem mechs.

And on that note, the statements about the rescaling being "mathematically perfect" are ridiculous when it's volume that they're talking about. Volume is not what is important. What is important is frontal and side profile surface area.


Frankly, I don't care if mechs are realistically sized when they do huge breaks from reality by making the gravity 3-4 times higher than it would be in real life. All the mechs in the game accelerate their fall far too quickly. They should be way, way more floaty if you are talking about realistic behavior. That's a way bigger physics concern than the scale of mechs.

The one, and only concern should be for what makes for a better game. Not for what makes sense assuming a certain density and whatnot.

Balance was (is) a problem and the lack of consistent scale for all the Mechs contributed to it. Removing the scaling disparity removes one variable factor from the balance equation thus making it simpler to find the answers.

Disclaimer: Although I approve of and support the re-scaling initiative, I am not in the camp that thinks that all Mechs should be balanced against each other. If I was then I would suggest that there only be one Mech in the game and everyone has to pilot it. Instant balance. Some Mechs are meant to be better than others or do some things better than others. I am find with that. I finds the ones that suit me and most the time they are not the ones that everyone holds up as the standard bearer for that weight class.

[Cy Mitchell]

Krivvan, on 30 April 2016 - 01:52 PM, said:

All talks about "realistic scale" need to be framed within the context of what makes for better gameplay. Maybe all mediums being the Vindicator's size would make "sense," but if that makes all mediums too large and easily killed for what they are and decreasing cover situations then that's terrible for the gameplay which is what should be the only concern in the end.

Which also means that what's important isn't volume, it's surface area and where you see that surface area from.

Realism is silly in a Mech game as you say.

You do realize that all Mechs are being re-scaled, not just the Mediums. No matter what they pick as a base they will all be scaled right in reference to it. Also MWO is a three dimensional game. You shoot Mechs from every angle so it is not just the front silhouette that is important. I know other players know that because I have been shot in the sides and back lots of times.

[Ultimax]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

But again, what is the assertion that the Blackjack is the "right" size based on? Compared to what?

Compared to the Vindicator, which is easier to kill due to its larger size at the same tonnage.

Making the Black Jack more like the Vindicator is a mistake.

[True Arrow]

Krivvan, on 30 April 2016 - 01:52 PM, said:

Because this never was supposed to be about realism. The game has tons of far, far larger realism problems, like the fact that gravity is done entirely wrong. They drastically messed up the gravity in favor of (what they believe) improving gameplay.

If we're talking realism, most mechs in the game would not be able to stand up without collapsing much less walk. The very concept of battlemechs is already hilariously unrealistic that all this talk about realism is ridiculous.

All talks about "realistic scale" need to be framed within the context of what makes for better gameplay. Maybe all mediums being the Vindicator's size would make "sense," but if that makes all mediums too large and easily killed for what they are and decreasing cover situations then that's terrible for the gameplay which is what should be the only concern in the end.

Which also means that what's important isn't volume, it's surface area and where you see that surface area from.

Gyroscopes can make just about anything stand up. Why not make the mechs realistic in size? Why are you so opposed to it? Obviously everything isn't going to be perfect. PGI didn't make the mechs sized for balance in the first place, so why should they start now? Quirks are how mechs are balanced, not griping for smaller hitboxes.

[ScarecrowES]

FupDup, on 30 April 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

A lot of people have forgotten this, so I'll bump this quote in a futile effort to trigger a memory recall.


People didn't complain about the Catapult's size because it was the "incorrect volume," people complained about the Catapult's size because this size made it too easy to kill.

People didn't complain about the Nova's size because it was the "incorrect volume," people complained about the Nova's size because this size made it too easy to kill.

People didn't complain about the Kit Fox's size because it was the "incorrect volume," people complained about the Kit Fox's size because this size made it too easy to kill.

People didn't complain about the Vindicator's size because it was the "incorrect volume," people complained about the Vindicator's size because this size made it too easy to kill.


Oh look, there's a trend here...

You'll also notice the trend that all those mechs are volumetrically too large for their tonnage. In the case of the Nova, it's 18% too big... so in the game it's a 62-ton mech with the structure and armor of a 50-ton mech... the Catapult is something like 75-tons. So you've got a mech the size of a Timberwolf, fighting Timberwolves, with the structure, armor, and weapons of a 65-tonner. And so on.

So yes... upon examination, those mechs were too weak because, volumetrically, they're WAY too large for their tonnage rating.

This is a rare moment on these forums where correlation and causation are the SAME THING.

So once you start looking into it, and correcting the most obvious mistakes in sizing, you start finding that a lot of mechs are off. Some more than others. So yeah, you're going to take the ridiculously overscaled mech they've given massive structure quirks to to compensate for that oversizing and bring it down to its proper size. But why stop there? If you find that most of your mechs aren't the proper size, and you've been dropping quirks in to compensate for all of those resizing issues, why would you only address the worst of the bunch and leave the rest intact?

Really, making every mech reflect its actual weight finally puts to rest the debate about whether particular mechs aren't very good because of their size. Now we can start looking at real causes of why different mechs are easier to kill that others... like geometry, hitboxes, etc.

[True Arrow]

Ultimax, on 30 April 2016 - 02:11 PM, said:

Compared to the Vindicator, which is easier to kill due to its larger size at the same tonnage.

Making the Black Jack more like the Vindicator is a mistake.

That's not a legitimate argument. You didn't actually use any reason, just an arbitrary comparison. The problem with public discussions like this is that many people simply don't know what a real argument is. Also, many people are apologists for mediocrity.

[ScarecrowES]

Ultimax, on 30 April 2016 - 02:11 PM, said:

Compared to the Vindicator, which is easier to kill due to its larger size at the same tonnage.

Making the Black Jack more like the Vindicator is a mistake.

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.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 30 April 2016 - 02:24 PM.

[FupDup]

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

Gyroscopes can make just about anything stand up. Why not make the mechs realistic in size? Why are you so opposed to it? Obviously everything isn't going to be perfect. PGI didn't make the mechs sized for balance in the first place, so why should they start now? Quirks are how mechs are balanced, not griping for smaller hitboxes.

If only PGI was better at actually doling out quirks to the mechs that needed them and in the quantities needed.

Also, keep in mind that making some mechs bigger just for the sake of "correctness" means that even more quirks will be needed. The Vindicator would need extreme quirks to be a worthwhile mech even now. If the rescale makes it EVEN BIGGER, then can you imagine the kind of quirks it would take to make it viable?

The forums don't like when mechs are given significant quirks. Look at past mechs like the Dragon 1N and Grid Iron as some examples. The fact of the matter is that PGI will never use quirks strong enough to make bad mechs good.

[True Arrow]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:

You'll also notice the trend that all those mechs are volumetrically too large for their tonnage. In the case of the Nova, it's 18% too big... so in the game it's a 62-ton mech with the structure and armor of a 50-ton mech... the Catapult is something like 75-tons. So you've got a mech the size of a Timberwolf, fighting Timberwolves, with the structure, armor, and weapons of a 65-tonner. And so on.

So yes... upon examination, those mechs were too weak because, volumetrically, they're WAY too large for their tonnage rating.

This is a rare moment on these forums where correlation and causation are the SAME THING.

So once you start looking into it, and correcting the most obvious mistakes in sizing, you start finding that a lot of mechs are off. Some more than others. So yeah, you're going to take the ridiculously overscaled mech they've given massive structure quirks to to compensate for that oversizing and bring it down to its proper size. But why stop there? If you find that most of your mechs aren't the proper size, and you've been dropping quirks in to compensate for all of those resizing issues, why would you only address the worst of the bunch and leave the rest intact?

Really, making every mech reflect its actual weight finally puts to rest the debate about whether particular mechs aren't very good because of their size. Now we can start looking at real causes of why different mechs are easier to kill that others... like geometry, hitboxes, etc.

They don't care. They just make excuses for the way things are.

Edited by WolframMan, 30 April 2016 - 02:23 PM.

[FupDup]

WolframMan, on 30 April 2016 - 02:23 PM, said:

This discussion is about scale, not balance. Forget the vindicator. It sucks, move on.

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.

Edited by FupDup, 30 April 2016 - 02:26 PM.

[LT. HARDCASE]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

Not because PGI says so... but because, unlike YOU and certain members of the community, PGI actually chose to use a completely OBJECTIVE system. Choose a set density that represents volume per ton, and adjust your models until their numbers match their actual listed tonnage.

You like the BJ for a 45-tonner, and a Zeus for an 80-tonner. Your scaling is based entirely on your perception, and you've chosen two completely different reference models with two completely different rescale scenarios. Why in the world would anyone choose two different reference models to size against? That makes no sense. And you've pretty much chosen them at random. What is this perception based on? You've got no objective value to compare to, so you're basically pulling the opinion out of your ***.

Simple mathematics takes guesswork and perception out of the equation. Under PGIs system, we'll know that the volume of a model will represent its actual tonnage. For good or ill, it will be correctly sized. With correctly-sized models, PGI can make adjustments via quirks if different mechs aren't performing well... you can then offset some inferior geometry and hardpoints with some quirks.

But until we get a baseline, it's just endless rounds of perception-based nonsense.

You could say the BJ is perfectly sized. Fine... but it's also extremely, uncharacteristically robust compared to other 45-tonners. Its got the best of both worlds right now, which is why it's not a very well-balanced mech. It likely won't be as robust if it was the same size as other 45-tonners, would it. So that would actually bring balance to the mech, right?

WolframMan, on 30 April 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

You're right he has no legitimate basis for what he's saying. He doesn't want to figure out the truth. He has an opinion and wants to prove it's true.

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.