413 replies to this topic

[STEF_]

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.

ok, let's put lore aside.

I would like to know, if the bj is going to be scaled up and close to (and a little smaller) the griffin... what they are going to do with the Atlas.
Because now the griffin has the same "altitude" of the Atlas.
So, since Russ mentioned a mathematical volumetric system, are they ging to "double" the Atlas?

[Chimera_]

Stefka Kerensky, on 30 April 2016 - 09:51 AM, said:

I can agree with that.
But, even if there is no source we can agree that medium are tooooo muuuch big. Look at the griffin, the size of an Atlas.
If they are going to make the bj even bigger, that's mean what? They are going to double the Altas for a new volumetric system?

Yeah, some mechs are definitely pretty wonky when it comes to size right now. When the rescale comes out I'm going to be spending a lot of time in the mechlab comparing mechs.

At the very least I think the rescale would make it easier to adjust mech sizes in the future. With a standard every mech is based on, you can make blanket adjustments to mechs of certain proportions.

Of course, (I believe) Russ said that any mech that has its volume change by more than 5% or so needs to have a lot more work done to get it working, so I doubt we'd see another rescale anytime soon.

Stefka Kerensky, on 30 April 2016 - 09:55 AM, said:

ok, let's put lore aside.

I would like to know, if the bj is going to be scaled up and close to (and a little smaller) the griffin... what they are going to do with the Atlas.
Because now the griffin has the same "altitude" of the Atlas.
So, since Russ mentioned a mathematical volumetric system, are they ging to "double" the Atlas?

Russ said (back when rescale was first announced as being a legit thing) that the Atlas is near perfect scale. That may have changed since then, but take that as you will.

Edited by Chimera11, 30 April 2016 - 09:56 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

So... here's the thing... MATH doesn't care what you believe to be true. MATH tells you what's true.

If MATH says that the BlackJack is undersized, then it is.

I wish people would stop crying about this. PGI is using an actual mathematical system for normalizing the entire mech collection together at once. Not some random and completely baseless system based on perception and wishful thinking.

It's funny... this whole process people refuse to look at the collection as a whole to see the trend in what's going on. We wanted the Centurion to get smaller. PGI says it's about the right size according to their system. But everything around the Centurion is getting a bit bigger, because according to PGI's system those were all undersized. So effectively, that mean's the Centurion is getting smaller in relation to its peers... which is what you wanted. In the end when you see a fully normalized selection of mechs, I think the whole thing will make more sense.

But saying the Blackjack was the ideal sizing reference was always a joke. That mech was always clearly undersized compared to it's peers. If that was going to be the standard by which all other mechs are judged, almost ALL mechs would end up getting shrunk by a wide margin.

[LT. HARDCASE]

There is no infallible math involved here. Russ has flat out said that they themselves CHOSE what they felt was the proper volume for each tonnage. So clearly they have chosen too big of a volume for certain tonnage levels.

The volume they chose was arbitrary, and I'm guessing it was based around giving them the least amount of work. It sure is easier to scale UP the BJ and Crab, than it is to scale DOWN ever 40 to 55 ton mech in the game. It is easier to scale UP the Zeus than it is to scale DOWN every other 80 to 85 tonner.

[Ultimax]

LT. HARDCASE, on 30 April 2016 - 09:37 AM, said:

Yeah Mcgral, it's like I was saying in the Twitch chat. Instead of making the oversized mechs smaller, they seem to be making the properly sized ones bigger. See: Blackjack, Crab, Grasshopper, Zeus.

Do the Gargoyle and Victor get smaller? Nope, we'll just make the only decently sized 80 tonner larger.

To those who argued me down when I talked about how their new scaling system is flawed, here is my proof. If the "science", as Russ called it last night, is telling them to make the well sized mechs bigger, then they're either using flawed science, or they are simply reading it incorrectly and making flawed conclusions.

Did he actually say the Grasshopper was going to get bigger?

[ScarecrowES]

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.

[Gas Guzzler]

Ultimax, on 30 April 2016 - 10:14 AM, said:

Did he actually say the Grasshopper was going to get bigger?

Yeah, but they would do it by thickening up the legs or something

[ScarecrowES]

LT. HARDCASE, on 30 April 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

There is no infallible math involved here. Russ has flat out said that they themselves CHOSE what they felt was the proper volume for each tonnage. So clearly they have chosen too big of a volume for certain tonnage levels.

The volume they chose was arbitrary, and I'm guessing it was based around giving them the least amount of work. It sure is easier to scale UP the BJ and Crab, than it is to scale DOWN ever 40 to 55 ton mech in the game. It is easier to scale UP the Zeus than it is to scale DOWN every other 80 to 85 tonner.

He did not say that they chose a different ideal volume for different tonnage levels. They said they chose a specific value for density per volume, and thus tonnage per volume. THAT choice is arbitrary. And largely, that only affects the total number of mechs that must be rescaled and how much those need to change. Once you establish what volume equals what tonnage, the rest takes care of itself. Your first decision is arbitrary. Everything that happens after that is basic and totally objective math.

And honestly, super simple math. Once you establish density for a model, which is a fixed setting, modeling software will tell you what the current volume of your model is, and that will give you the tonnage rating of that model. Punch a few numbers on a calculator, and that will tell you how much different the model is from the rated tonnage of that mech. It's literally a 5-minute thing to do.

[STEF_]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

He did not say that they chose a different ideal volume for different tonnage levels. They said they chose a specific value for density per volume, and thus tonnage per volume. THAT choice is arbitrary. And largely, that only affects the total number of mechs that must be rescaled and how much those need to change. Once you establish what volume equals what tonnage, the rest takes care of itself. Your first decision is arbitrary. Everything that happens after that is basic and totally objective math.

And honestly, super simple math. Once you establish density for a model, which is a fixed setting, modeling software will tell you what the current volume of your model is, and that will give you the tonnage rating of that model. Punch a few numbers on a calculator, and that will tell you how much different the model is from the rated tonnage of that mech. It's literally a 5-minute thing to do.

Sadly, math does not apply well in videogame.
Here it is:


These are 2 volumes, the left is the double of the right one.

That means that if it is true that Russ wants to apply the volumetric system to mwo, the Atlas would be a little more bigger than the Centurion.
OR, the centurion a little smaller than an Atlas.

Are u understanding why I'm very worried about it?

[FupDup]

Ultimax, on 30 April 2016 - 10:14 AM, said:

Did he actually say the Grasshopper was going to get bigger?

Yes, he did.

Now you know why I'm up in arms about this.

[True Arrow]

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.

If you look at the volume of the mechs, this is actually far more accurate than in MWO. When talking about "size" you seem to be focusing on height, not volume. Look at the difference between the Maddog and the Timber Wolf. The T wolf has thicker legs, torso and arms. If anything, it would be MORE than 15 tons heavier. Look at the Fire Moth compared to the Warhawk; the Warhawk is slightly taller (which you have focused on for some reason) but also MUCH more voluminous. The Warhawk should be several times heavier, which it is. In MWO let's use the lights compared to the assaults for example; the lights in general are tiny compared to the assaults. They shouldn't be lets say 30 tons compared to 90, more like 10 tons compared to 200. It seems to be intuitive for people to think about height almost exclusively. But height is only a partial factor in volume which is height x length x width. To be clear, to use volume to calculate mass you need to assume the mechs have about the same density.

[Juodas Varnas]

Stefka Kerensky, on 30 April 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

That means that if it is true that Russ wants to apply the volumetric system to mwo, the Atlas would be a little more bigger than the Centurion.
OR, the centurion a little smaller than an Atlas.

Are u understanding why I'm very worried about it?

Didn't he say that the Centurion is "slightly" oversized, though?

Which leads me to my other point. MAKE CENTURION SKINNIER!

Koniving, on 03 July 2015 - 05:38 PM, said:

While Treb and Quickdraw do need rescales, the Treb is skinny compared to the Centurion...

But honestly, on the left is MWO's Centurion. On the right is the same Centurion rescaled to match the limb and body thickness of the concept art.

[ScarecrowES]

Stefka Kerensky, on 30 April 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

Sadly, math does not apply well in videogame.
Here it is:


These are 2 volumes, the left is the double of the right one.

That means that if it is true that Russ wants to apply the volumetric system to mwo, the Atlas would be a little more bigger than the Centurion.
OR, the centurion a little smaller than an Atlas.

Are u understanding why I'm very worried about it?

Well, according to PGI, both the Atlas and Centurion models currently in the game were found to be very close to their actual tonnage. So go take a peek in the game and see if that relationship fits your particular sensibilities. It will give you a good idea of how a lot of the rest of the mechs will look after rescale.

Also, for reference, the current Nova weighs about 62 tons. Bodes well for the Mad Dog, doesn't it?

But, another thing to consider here is the relationship of volume to shape... let's reconfigure those cubes using the same volumes they currently are...

Keeping the width of each cube the same... 8.82 and 7cm respectively, but reducing the depth to 2cm for both, the larger cube will be 38.89cm tall, and the smaller cube will be 24.5cm tall. That would make the smaller cube a bit less than 2/3 the height of the larger cube at about 62%, and about 80% of the width. This is looking a lot more reasonable, right?

SO... though volumetrically the larger cube is double the smaller one, and in the most compact form the smaller one looks only about 20% smaller than the large... configured more like a mech, the smaller cube presents a target less than 60% of the size of the large one. So it's not all doom-and-gloom.

Will a 50-ton mech look exactly half as large as a 100-ton mech after a volumetric rescale? Nope. Nor should it. But let's not get crazy, it will still look a LOT smaller.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 30 April 2016 - 10:43 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Mcgral18, on 30 April 2016 - 09:23 AM, said:

Normalization went so well last time...where pulse lasers were rendered rubbish for the better part of two years...


Mech scale is an important part of balance, and BJ is a solid size, unlike the Vindi

The pulse laser "normalisation" and this have nothing in common, and you know it. That was messed up and completely illogical from the get go. This is simple, straight up math linking volume to mass. While in reality there would be differences in density, going straight up volume:mass means it can't be ****** up. It's something PGI can do and actually get right, because math is easy and opinion has no place.

You can't make any comments on whether anything is a good size or not until you see ALL the rescales, as (virtually) everything is being rescaled. While not completely, sizing is extremely relative. Without comparison

The rescale won't make balance better or worse, it'll just remove mech scaling as a problem. They won't be "too big" or "too small" compared to another chassis, they'll be the right size, as will new mechs. Then you can balance from there knowing at least that the mech is the correct physical size for its mass.

It's basically just isolating variables. The alternatives?

A: Leave mechs randomly scaled. GGclose Vindicator, Nova, and bring out the Dartboard of Balance for new mechs.

B: Adjust scale for balance. Sure, this sounds best, but PGI is bad at this and already has enough ***** they can turn for balance. Adding more ***** is just going to increase bizarre inconsistencies.

[True Arrow]

Stefka Kerensky, on 30 April 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

Sadly, math does not apply well in videogame.
Here it is:


These are 2 volumes, the left is the double of the right one.

That means that if it is true that Russ wants to apply the volumetric system to mwo, the Atlas would be a little more bigger than the Centurion.
OR, the centurion a little smaller than an Atlas.

Are u understanding why I'm very worried about it?

Thank you for this post. It demonstrates very well to people that volume is counter-intuitive. A small increase in the length of the sides is amplified in to a massive increase in volume. In fact, and increase in length is cubed, meaning it's put to the 3rd power. You're right to be concerned that an actual proper mathematical scaling would drastically change the game.

[cazidin]

Didn't Russ also say that the Black Knight and Marauder were getting rescaled? Has he said anything about the Ebon Jaguar or the Timber Wolf?

[STEF_]

WolframMan, on 30 April 2016 - 10:29 AM, said:

If you look at the volume of the mechs, this is actually far more accurate than in MWO. When talking about "size" you seem to be focusing on height, not volume. Look at the difference between the Maddog and the Timber Wolf. The T wolf has thicker legs, torso and arms. If anything, it would be MORE than 15 tons heavier. Look at the Fire Moth compared to the Warhawk; the Warhawk is slightly taller (which you have focused on for some reason) but also MUCH more voluminous. The Warhawk should be several times heavier, which it is. In MWO let's use the lights compared to the assaults for example; the lights in general are tiny compared to the assaults. They shouldn't be lets say 30 tons compared to 90, more like 10 tons compared to 200. It seems to be intuitive for people to think about height almost exclusively. But height is only a partial factor in volume which is height x length x width. To be clear, to use volume to calculate mass you need to assume the mechs have about the same density.

As I previously posted, math does not apply well in a game.
That 2 cubes are mathematecally correct.
In mech battles it doesn't "translate" well, because a 50 tonner, a lil less big than a 100 tonner, have half armor, but quite same size. ------> Instagibbed, unless crazy and nonsense quirks.

And yes: hopper even bigger because it is slim.

Imo, this is going to be the "ultimate craziness" ....


(don0t worry Russ, I'm cheat chatting with forumers, here.... I'm not going to suggest anything to pgi, dont0 worry)

[Wintersdark]

Gas Guzzler, on 30 April 2016 - 10:18 AM, said:

Yeah, but they would do it by thickening up the legs or something

Not all the mechs are seeing 1:1:1 rescaling. Some with badly incorrect sizes are seeing other ratios or more complex remodeling to achieve the correct volune.

Maybe some don't like the idea of mechs being sized per weight, but at least it'll be a small bit of realism in a crazy space magic game.

Edited by Wintersdark, 30 April 2016 - 10:42 AM.

[White Bear 84]

Haahaha PGI have to be kidding right...

[Ultimax]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 10:35 AM, said:

The pulse laser "normalisation" and this have nothing in common, and you know it. That was messed up and completely illogical from the get go. This is simple, straight up math linking volume to mass. While in reality there would be differences in density, going straight up volume:mass means it can't be ****** up. It's something PGI can do and actually get right, because math is easy and opinion has no place.

They can screw this up in multiple ways.


For starters, they should be aiming to scale most mechs down - everything should get smaller except for stuff they feel is already too small, which are the mechs that should be their target volumes.


That would be the best thing for balance.


2nd, these aren't spheres or cylinders or cones. Raw volume isn't the only factor.

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


Total volume alone is insufficient dealing with idiosyncratic designs.