413 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Pjwned, on 30 April 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

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.

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.

It's math. They're either doing what they said (which is the easiest way to do it, which is a plus) or they're full of ****. If they are full of ****, they're full of ****, and that would apply 100% no matter what they say or do.

I get your point, but it's totally useless and not worth discussing. "I think you guys are lying, so ibwant you to tell me your not lying!". That's just dumb. Take their word, or don't. If you don't, you may as well just wait and see, because you're not going to trust what they say anyways.

[LT. HARDCASE]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:

They ARE making the Vindicator more durable, it's shrinking fairly dramatically.

You got any receipts on that statement? I haven't seen Russ comment on the Vindicator,even in passing. I've even tweeted him about it, and got no response.

The Vindicator getting smaller, like physically and not relatively, would be huge. I'd sit down and shut up in that case.

Edited by LT. HARDCASE, 30 April 2016 - 04:31 PM.

[Davers]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 04:15 PM, said:

They're not using the Awesome as the standard.

You sure? I didn't think the community voted #3 too large mech would be considered perfect for 50 ton mechs. So Hunchback and Crab get bigger, while Kintaro and Trebuchet most likely won't change much. Why do I feel this is not an improvement?

[Pjwned]

Wintersdark, on 30 April 2016 - 04:20 PM, said:

It's math. They're either doing what they said (which is the easiest way to do it, which is a plus) or they're full of ****. If they are full of ****, they're full of ****, and that would apply 100% no matter what they say or do.

I get your point, but it's totally useless and not worth discussing. "I think you guys are lying, so ibwant you to tell me your not lying!". That's just dumb. Take their word, or don't. If you don't, you may as well just wait and see, because you're not going to trust what they say anyways.

I wouldn't ask them to demonstrate they aren't full of **** if I didn't believe them no matter what they said.

Is it impossible for PGI to do something right? No, not impossible, but on the other hand if I think they're doing something stupid then I want them to actually demonstrate that what they're doing is not stupid because they no longer have enough credibility to be believed simply on their word alone.

[Wintersdark]

Davers, on 30 April 2016 - 04:32 PM, said:

You sure? I didn't think the community voted #3 too large mech would be considered perfect for 50 ton mechs. So Hunchback and Crab get bigger, while Kintaro and Trebuchet most likely won't change much. Why do I feel this is not an improvement?

Yes, I'm sure, because the Awesome was specifically mentioned as a mech thats both shrinking (I forget the percentage, but it was given) AND getting a remodel.

[True Arrow]

Yeonne Greene, on 30 April 2016 - 03:43 PM, said:

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.

Why do you say it was too big? It's shorter than the Vindicator and has concave parts to its torso. It is clearly too small. It's the best medium by far. If anything its over powered. By the way, stop talking about balancing through the size of mechs. They're supposed to be a certain size.

Edited by WolframMan, 30 April 2016 - 04:59 PM.

[True Arrow]

LT. HARDCASE, on 30 April 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

Let me try to help you understand my point:

Yes, every mech in a given tonnage should be equally easy to shoot. I agree.

Making the Blackjack's durability as weak as the Vindicator, is a mistake. Why aren't they making the Vindicator's durability as strong as the Blackjack? Their scientific conclusions have lead them to nerf the entire 45 ton class, when it's a class that is on the verge of worthlessness.

How can one then judge their conclusion as anything but folly? That simple enough?

Every mech of a given tonnage shouldn't be as easy to shoot as another. They're supposed to be different sizes and shapes. That's like saying all mechs should have the same hardpoints, or armor. Why do you want them to micro manage everything trying to balance every mech? Mechs are all different. Their size should be based on. oh I don't know, what size they're supposed to be.

[Karamarka]

I like the rescale. I cant wait until they rescale everything in June at the same time.

[Matthew Ace]

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

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.

Bolded the specific paragraph I am quoting. If memory serves me right, they are using the Hunchback and Atlas as the benchmark for scaling (hence reluctance to scale those down; I am too lazy to search Twitter for source). I hope that is not the sole decision behind their choice of density though. While indeed reducing the total number of 'mechs to be re-scaled is good business sense resource-wise, by going the further step to ensure no mechs will be negatively impacted, that goodwill will potentially translate to increased income as well (it was already a pleasant surprise to find out most of the mechs in-game are getting a rescale, rather than just the Top 5).

IMO, based on gameplay reasons taking the priority (No mech must be made any easier to kill after the rescaling), followed by the need to make Mech Scaling consistent so as to translate into consistent scaling for any existing or subsequent new mechs, the Crab and Zeus would probably be my pick as the benchmark. This would also have the additional benefit of increased room for adjusting chassis. For example, Centurions being scaled to have a narrower frontal profile. IIRC, unfortunately the Crab will be getting 7% bigger by volume.

Nevertheless, I am confident the rescaling will be for the better, than for the worse.

I mean, hey! Locust will get noticeably smaller.

Edited by Matthew Ace, 30 April 2016 - 06:41 PM.

[Mcgral18]

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

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.

The environment matters little in this discussion, the important part is your hitboxes getting bigger, and guns staying the same (and likely improving, because bigger robots=bigger quirks)

So, as a matter of fact, this will decrease TTK, because you have less armour over a larger area against guns which kill you faster.


Possibly with more IS+A instead of gun quirks, as that's another route, but that's up to PGI.

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.

And I shall have some comparisons. 2K textures are backed up and up to date (as of this moment)

Rescale may or may not change much, but it will be nice to have a comparison either way.

[Y E O N N E]

Matthew Ace, on 30 April 2016 - 06:23 PM, said:

I mean, hey! Locust will get noticeably smaller.

And I'm not so sure that's really good, either. I'm not going to complain, because the 'Mech still needs all the help it can get, but I think the Locust's larger issue is the fact that it can't sustain output to stay dangerous when it matters, either for lack of ammo or lack of heat-cap or both.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 30 April 2016 - 07:13 PM, said:

And I'm not so sure that's really good, either. I'm not going to complain, because the 'Mech still needs all the help it can get, but I think the Locust's larger issue is the fact that it can't sustain output to stay dangerous when it matters, either for lack of ammo or lack of heat-cap or both.

If I had to guess, the explanation for the Lolcust's downsize is that it's being compared to the Jenner. When we compare it to the Jenny, the Jenny has a somewhat similar physical size despite being almost double the mass.

[STEF_]

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...

Let's add some more to this.
Let's talk about quirks, because Russ stated that "looking big" mechs will be quirked.

Now, did anybody notice how easy it is to kill an Orion, despite it's good structure quirks?

That's because, despite structure quirks, it is very easy to select and hit an hitboxes in that thing.....

So, imagine, a bigger BJ.
What kind of crazy quirks it would need to make it survive?
Now it can survive well ...because of quirks, but above all because it is small!!! and lezors can be spreaded in all hitboxes.

If you make it bigger, ----> Orion blocky Syndrome incoming.

I repeat ...All mechs should be scaled down. Make them smaller: side effect: TTK will increase.

Mcgral18, on 30 April 2016 - 07:06 PM, said:

The environment matters little in this discussion, the important part is your hitboxes getting bigger, and guns staying the same (and likely improving, because bigger robots=bigger quirks)

So, as a matter of fact, this will decrease TTK, because you have less armour over a larger area against guns which kill you faster.


Possibly with more IS+A instead of gun quirks, as that's another route, but that's up to PGI.


And I shall have some comparisons. 2K textures are backed up and up to date (as of this moment)

Rescale may or may not change much, but it will be nice to have a comparison either way.

wtf.... I posted my last post without reading this yours....
(apparently we are reasoning in the same way )

[LordKnightFandragon]

FupDup, on 30 April 2016 - 02:38 PM, said:

Power armor looks like this:


Or this:




MWO light mechs aren't anywhere even remotely close to that size.

I know they are not actually that small, but when you run up against one, it comes to like the knees of a Warhawk, any smaller and I could literally step on it....

Either way, they are more like 15 ton 2016 robots and alot less 30-35t battlemechs.

Lights are only as small as they are to accommodate for the alphastrike warrior we play, lest they not get melted in 2 shots.......so they make them way to small and obscenely fast and defy the laws of really fast motion, allowing them to turn on dimes at 120kph and crap.

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 30 April 2016 - 10:12 PM.

[Koniving]

LordKnightFandragon, on 30 April 2016 - 01:08 PM, said:

Is that just because Russ doesnt know how to scale properly? a 45t mech should be generally smaller then a 55t. Isnt there TROs that tell Russ how big mechs are?

Read the TRO, all the clan mechs are essentially the same height, just varying degrees of width and stuff.

See my post above yours.

In it is the only official BT scale of Clan omnimechs actually made

Firemoth, 20 tons 11.4 meters. Mist lynx, 25 tons, 10.6 meters. Nova, 50 tons, 8.3 meters. Kitfox, 30 tons, 8.5 meters. Adder, 35 tons, 8.6 meters. Timber wolf, 75 tons, 12.6 meters. Summoner, 70 tons, 12.8 meters. Dire Wolf, 100 tons, 12.3 meters.

Think it's a bit more complicated than that mate.
Any height described assumes ferro/endo is locked on all Mechs described, omni or not.

[Koniving]

LordKnightFandragon, on 30 April 2016 - 10:11 PM, said:

I know they are not actually that small, but when you run up against one, it comes to like the knees of a Warhawk, any smaller and I could literally step on it....

Either way, they are more like 15 ton 2016 robots and alot less 30-35t battlemechs.

Lights are only as small as they are to accommodate for the alphastrike warrior we play, lest they not get melted in 2 shots.......so they make them way to small and obscenely fast and defy the laws of really fast motion, allowing them to turn on dimes at 120kph and crap.

Power armor squads get about an average of 15 tons per 6 or 8 guys. Will be more accurate in a few hours when I'm home to check.

Power armor akin to fallout is pretty accurate. To note, you are thinking of protomechs which are bigger and range 4 to 12 tons from what I understand and look like goofy things like minotaurs. Or elementals which are big 8 foot dudes that could snap the steroid Queens of gears of war like the Cole Train in half, in their own special suits of armor.

Will have a list of power armor with men next to them, as well as swarmed Mechs and elemental to mech comparisons in a few hours.

Mechs are MUCH shorter than mwo depicts them.

Patlabor is probably the best example of the height of the smallest humanoid BattleMechs for scale.

[Koniving]

Oh to note, an 80 ton tank has a higher max armor than a 100 ton mech, and they average the same amount of weight in weapons as an 80 ton mech with that superior armor and a heavier ICE engine, and can stand toe to toe against them.

My Behemoth tank disabled 3 Enforcers, destroyed 2, killed an Atlas, and severely damaged another 2 before being taken down -- all after getting tracked/unable to move in an 8 enforcer, 1 Atlas versus 1 behemoth tank and 1 commando that got insta-killed.

Just food for thought.

[adamts01]

Stupidest thing yet from PGI. They dialed that thing in perfectly. After re-size it'll just need those structure quirks back.... And this is right after I praised them for having a re-size poll and following through with what the community wanted. F you PGI for sucking at everything.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Koniving, on 01 May 2016 - 12:42 AM, said:

Power armor squads get about an average of 15 tons per 6 or 8 guys. Will be more accurate in a few hours when I'm home to check.

Power armor akin to fallout is pretty accurate. To note, you are thinking of protomechs which are bigger and range 4 to 12 tons from what I understand and look like goofy things like minotaurs. Or elementals which are big 8 foot dudes that could snap the steroid Queens of gears of war like the Cole Train in half, in their own special suits of armor.

Will have a list of power armor with men next to them, as well as swarmed Mechs and elemental to mech comparisons in a few hours.

Mechs are MUCH shorter than mwo depicts them.

Patlabor is probably the best example of the height of the smallest humanoid BattleMechs for scale.

I know mechs are shorter then MWO depicts them. The Dire Wolf is only like 48 feet tall or so, that is the length of a 48 foot 18 wheeler trailer, and that is shorter then your standard trailer that is 53 ft long. So, yeah, mechs are not that tall.

Either way, Light mechs dont need to be that dang tiny, that or all the other mechs are massively oversized, which I think might be a mix of both to big everything else and to small lights.

[MauttyKoray]

Juodas Varnas, on 30 April 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

I say, if we're normalizing the volume of all the mechs, then normalize ALL OF THEM

No exceptions.

Well, yeah, that's THE POINT. All mechs had a volumetric taken and are being rescaled based on their tonnage. This is literally a MASSIVE thing that's been discussed for months now, including things like the CATAPULT getting a reduction! (no really, it needs it lol)

Can't wait to see it honestly, but I'm also tired of people thinking that 25 tonners should be ankle biters. Yes 25 versus 100 tons makes a difference in size, but the biggest size factors are things like the 'mechs construction. Humanoids will usually be taller than non-humanoid, and weight distribution is less of a height factor than it is a size factor. An Atlas chassis with full armor is the same size as one with no armor, and that's something roughly around like 1/5 of the entire mech's tonnage.

easiest way to imagine it is think of someone who weighs 200lbs. Now imagine two people who weigh that, one at 6 feet and the other at 5. Same basic shape (humanoid) but their size and proportions are different because they both weigh 200lbs. Lets say....in the shape of a dog? Meet the Russian Bear Dog, can reach up to 200lbs and is a significantly different shape even though it would weight the same as the 5ft and 6ft people.