413 replies to this topic

[Cy Mitchell]

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.

Point taken.

But same armor over a larger target area (assuming every Mech gets bigger). I see your point though..

Edited by Rampage, 01 May 2016 - 01:51 AM.

[Nightshade24]

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.

Because TT made some sense. Just because something takes more volume, doesn't mean it uses more volume and with the same materials or what have you. This can be easier compaired to some real life tanks...

Like the KV-1 and the KV-1S...

The KV-1S is virtually the same volume as the KV-1 but slightly smaller in some areas. However it is still reduced by 3 tonnes. But alright, That is a 3 ton difference for nearly the same volume. It isn't as big as some of the huge changes we see in mechs surely...
The KV-2 however is on the same hull but has a much larger turret. Still small in BT terms. (models to demonstrate)



now in BT terms, you could say this is still no big change, however the weight now is 52 tonnes from the earlier 45. This tank is much more bigger the he other one now yet for how much more volume it gets... it's just 7 tonnes heavier.

demonstrated 3 tanks IRL that goes from 42.3 tonnes (KV-1S) to 52 tonnes (KV-2).
This is minor (in terms of BT terms) are just variants.
Many variants in BT have drastic size differencess... ie: catapult K-2 to Catapult C4.
Then you got the Flea which has 1 variant 25% lighter (Flea normal: 20 tonnes, Flea ultralight variant: 15 tonnes. apocryphal)


There are a few ways I see how this is logical:
1) Not all mechs are exactly the same weight (it's rather silly to think so). So I believe the mechs are rounded up or down to the closest 5. This explains the difference in variants and same weight mechs that clearly have variables rather it be barrel / breach/ ammo mechanisms to things like geometry (ie Raven 3L to raven 2X, or Raven to Jenner)

2) Most mechs may very in size as the tonnage is distributed much differently through the mech as well may just simply have much more empty space or lighter materials then another mech. Some vehicles IRL are like this as well same volume but completely different weight due to the matterials or simply having space... Quite a lot of vehicles IRL has lots of space while others are so cramped that even the pilot is shoulder to shoulder to the walls of the cabin.

It's rather reasonable the TT scale. However I fear PGi's rescaling may ruin some key features here... Such as say the fact that the clan mechs share the exact same parts. ie the legs of most clan mechs (look at the chart above... kitfox and adder legs... direwolf and warhawk... timberwolf and mad dog... etc)

[LordKnightFandragon]

^^Yeah, I hope the rescale does nice things for this game. All the mechs being huge, except for lights which are absurdly small and impossible to hit.

Nightshade24, on 01 May 2016 - 03:10 AM, said:

Because TT made some sense. Just because something takes more volume, doesn't mean it uses more volume and with the same materials or what have you. This can be easier compaired to some real life tanks...

Like the KV-1 and the KV-1S...

The KV-1S is virtually the same volume as the KV-1 but slightly smaller in some areas. However it is still reduced by 3 tonnes. But alright, That is a 3 ton difference for nearly the same volume. It isn't as big as some of the huge changes we see in mechs surely...
The KV-2 however is on the same hull but has a much larger turret. Still small in BT terms. (models to demonstrate)



now in BT terms, you could say this is still no big change, however the weight now is 52 tonnes from the earlier 45. This tank is much more bigger the he other one now yet for how much more volume it gets... it's just 7 tonnes heavier.

demonstrated 3 tanks IRL that goes from 42.3 tonnes (KV-1S) to 52 tonnes (KV-2).
This is minor (in terms of BT terms) are just variants.
Many variants in BT have drastic size differencess... ie: catapult K-2 to Catapult C4.
Then you got the Flea which has 1 variant 25% lighter (Flea normal: 20 tonnes, Flea ultralight variant: 15 tonnes. apocryphal)


There are a few ways I see how this is logical:
1) Not all mechs are exactly the same weight (it's rather silly to think so). So I believe the mechs are rounded up or down to the closest 5. This explains the difference in variants and same weight mechs that clearly have variables rather it be barrel / breach/ ammo mechanisms to things like geometry (ie Raven 3L to raven 2X, or Raven to Jenner)

2) Most mechs may very in size as the tonnage is distributed much differently through the mech as well may just simply have much more empty space or lighter materials then another mech. Some vehicles IRL are like this as well same volume but completely different weight due to the matterials or simply having space... Quite a lot of vehicles IRL has lots of space while others are so cramped that even the pilot is shoulder to shoulder to the walls of the cabin.

It's rather reasonable the TT scale. However I fear PGi's rescaling may ruin some key features here... Such as say the fact that the clan mechs share the exact same parts. ie the legs of most clan mechs (look at the chart above... kitfox and adder legs... direwolf and warhawk... timberwolf and mad dog... etc)

KV1 to KV2 is a good comparison for the Clans, since they seem to copy pasta alot of components between mechs.

Something about the Timberwolf and Maddog using the same legs? Warhawk and DWF using the same legs.

[Catra Lanis]

Why didn't they pick let's say the Atlas and used it for a reference from the very beginning? Seems to me that they could have saved themselves a lot of time and work if they'd done it properly from the get go.

[Wintersdark]

Catra Lanis, on 01 May 2016 - 06:03 AM, said:

Why didn't they pick let's say the Atlas and used it for a reference from the very beginning? Seems to me that they could have saved themselves a lot of time and work if they'd done it properly from the get go.

How do you figure? Thats basically what they did. I'm not sure if an existing mech is the reference or the average density of all mechs is used as a reference but either way, they picked a reference point and are scaling to it.

[Cy Mitchell]

I am curious how you come to the conclusion that these two tanks have the same volume? The KV1 clearly has more volume and you even say it also weighs 3 tons more. In my mind, anything on the tank contributes to its volume (mass). Having a turret that is twice as large as the KV1s means that its volume will be increased by at least the percentage of the larger turret to the smaller turret in ratio to the rest of the tank.

Unless you are defining volume as only the free space inside the tank? Sorry, I do not follow.

[ScarecrowES]

I think a lot of people are struggling to understand exactly what is happening in this rescale...

I see a lot of "Blackjack should have been chosen to represent the 45-tonners." Or, "Zeus should represent the 80-tonners, not the Awesome. The Zeus is the perfect 80-ton size."

PGI is NOT going to each tonnage rating, picking a mech they feel is the perfect mech to represent that tonnage, and then scaling all the other mechs at that tonnage to fit the "perfect" reference. That is NOT happening. There is nothing so subjective about what PGI is doing.

PGI's process is entirely objective. And completely mathematical. Tonnage is weight. A measurement of mass as reflected by an applied force (gravity). Volume is the physical space that mass takes up, measured in a 3-dimensional representation of distances. Density is a factor of mass per volume. The volume of all MWO mech models is readily known in the modeling software used to create them. The software can tell you exactly what the interior volume of any model mesh created in that software is. To determine what the mass (tonnage) of that model is, we need to choose a density value for what tonnage mechs weight for a given amount of volume.

Now, how PGI came up with this density is unknown. Given the great amount of variation in the discrepancy between mass and volume across the whole collection of mech models, and given the fact that so many models do not need to be rescaled at all - and more are within a mere few percent of their true tonnage - whatever density was chosen would seem to be one that allowed for the minimum number of chassis to need reworking to be correct.

We can argue that any one of the 8 or so mech chassis that don't require rescaling is the reference mech. We could just as easily say that NO mech is a reference mech, and an arbitrary value was chosen that happens to represent the largest possible share of "correct" mechs. In the end, you have your chosen density. Regardless of what the reference point is, all mechs scaled to that reference point will have the same relative size to each other. It doesn't matter which mech or which arbitrary number you chose, the results will be exactly the same.

Now we've established that a Battlemech weighs a certain amount of tonnage per a certain volume... AND we know the volume of every mech model.

We can then calculate, with a simple basic Algebra equation with a single variable, what the actual tonnage rating of every mech model in the game is. For instance... the Nova model in the game is approximately 62 tons. It's supposed to be 50 tons. So we know that model needs to be reduced in volume by 18% in order for the model to weigh 50 tons. We know that the Centurion model in the game is pretty close to its correct weight of 50 tons. It varies from the correct tonnage by less than 2%.

Knowing what each model actually weights, PGI then has to decide how to get it to the correct weight. Some models are getting a simple 1:1:1 rescale. That means that every axis of the mech is getting shrunk or enlarged by the same amount. Some mechs are getting all-new from-scratch models... like the Catapult. Not only will it be smaller than it's current size by a large amount, it will have a completely different mesh, different hardpoints, the works. Some mechs are getting partial remodels (Warhawk, Direwolf), while others are having certain components of the mech rescaled independently (Grasshopper). Some mechs are just getting scaled along certain axis... being made just taller or wider - shorter or narrower. The method chosen to rescale each model is whatever that particular model needs.

The entire selection of mechs are being sent through the rescale process. PGI is not hand-picking just a few major offenders. A small number of mechs won't need rescaling, but most will have some level of modification done. Some mechs will be larger than they are now, most will be smaller.

This in no way has anything to do with balance. Mechs are not being increased or decreased in size to make them better or worse relative to other mechs. They're being increased or decreased so they actually weigh what the game says they weigh. Every 45-ton mech will weight 45 tons. And every 45-ton mech produced later will drop into the game already at 45 tons. All 45-tonners will have 10 ton's-worth of volume less than all 55-tonners. All 50-tonners will have half the volume of all 100-tonners.

It's like building mechs from lumps of clay. You want to build a 45-ton mech? You start with a 45-ton block of clay and build it to whatever shape you want the mech to be. You want to build a 75-ton mech? You start with a 75-ton block of clay. Not all mechs within a given weight will look the same size... different mechs have different dimensions. The Shadowcat and Vindicator have very different designs. BUT, both will be built with the same amount of clay.

What this then allows the developer to do is look at how each mech is performing... how easy or hard to kill that mech is... and say definitively, "well, this Nova isn't so easy to kill because it's massively oversized. It must be a different reason." Then we can look at geo, or hitboxes. We can also look at how much damage that mech is capable of putting out. Does a Vindicator suck now because it doesn't have enough firepower? Or does it suck because it's so large that it gets wiped out well before it has a chance to do anything?

Once all mechs have had their models normalized, THEN we can see what the hell is actually going on. We take model size completely out of the equation. Now we can put the Vindicator up against the Blackjack and really see what makes these mechs perform differently. SHOULD one of those mechs perform better than the other? Do we need to accept that one will be squishier than the other because it gets a trade-off in something else - more speed, more firepower? Does one of them just have better torso geo than the other, and we need to look at giving the weaker mech a lil boost in structure?

Right now, with mech models in the state they're in, it's next to impossible to tell how each one is really performing. After the rescale, it will be much easier. Simple as that.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 01 May 2016 - 09:41 AM.

[LT. HARDCASE]

The volume first approach is asinine, if profile and surface area, the most important factors when you're shooting at pixels, aren't a part of the equation.

I'm done arguing it for now, the June patch will prove who's right or wrong.

Thank for the discussion though.

[ScarecrowES]

LT. HARDCASE, on 01 May 2016 - 11:00 AM, said:

The volume first approach is asinine, if profile and surface area, the most important factors when you're shooting at pixels, aren't a part of the equation.

I'm done arguing it for now, the June patch will prove who's right or wrong.

Thank for the discussion though.

How will the June patch prove anything, exactly?

That's just the resize drop. We still actually have to PLAY the mechs at their proper size to see what the balance is like. You realize that right? That once you resize the things you have to go back and balance them? Adjust quirks and all that?

And surface area is... how do I put this... ridiculous. PROFILE is what matters when you're shooting at something. The 2d representation of a 3d object. Surface area has literally nothing to do with it. Know what impacts profile? Volume and shape. One of those things we're making a constant... the other is a variable we can account for via quirks.

I think you're having a hard time with understanding basic geometry, and it's very frustrating.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 01 May 2016 - 11:15 AM.

[Barantor]

Some folks won't like the changes, some will...... just like every other patch this game has ever had. Some of it changes the meta, some of it doesn't but a lot of folks don't like adjustments.


I'm glad they are at least establishing a cohesive baseline so that balance can happen afterward.

[LT. HARDCASE]

ScarecrowES, on 01 May 2016 - 11:14 AM, said:

How will the June patch prove anything, exactly?

That's just the resize drop. We still actually have to PLAY the mechs at their proper size to see what the balance is like. You realize that right? That once you resize the things you have to go back and balance them? Adjust quirks and all that?

And surface area is... how do I put this... ridiculous. PROFILE is what matters when you're shooting at something. The 2d representation of a 3d object. Surface area has literally nothing to do with it. Know what impacts profile? Volume and shape. One of those things we're making a constant... the other is a variable we can account for via quirks.

I think you're having a hard time with understanding basic geometry, and it's very frustrating.

Making the game even more reliant on quirks is the worst scenario PGI could create. You're okay with that?

But you're so bullheadedly convinced that they are 100% right, there's no reasoning with you. Not once in this entire thread have you typed one sentence that showed you're even listening to other people's arguments. That is very frustrating,

You're hiding behind "science", when you seem to have no idea of how it relates to gameplay balance. You're essentially saying that PGI can fix anything they eff up with more quirks. If that were true, the Orion would be semi-viable right now.

At any moment I expect you to lift your mask and reveal yourself as Paul Inoyue.

[ScarecrowES]

LT. HARDCASE, on 01 May 2016 - 11:35 AM, said:

Making the game even more reliant on quirks is the worst scenario PGI could create. You're okay with that?

But you're so bullheadedly convinced that they are 100% right, there's no reasoning with you. Not once in this entire thread have you typed one sentence that showed you're even listening to other people's arguments. That is very frustrating,

You're hiding behind "science", when you seem to have no idea of how it relates to gameplay balance. You're essentially saying that PGI can fix anything they eff up with more quirks. If that were true, the Orion would be semi-viable right now.

At any moment I expect you to lift your mask and reveal yourself as Paul Inoyue.

I'm sorry... just as in the case of religion, science really doesn't care what you BELIEVE to be true. It absolutely doesn't.

And in terms of gameplay balance... how can you expect to balance two mechs that are supposed to weigh the exact same amount, but one actually weighs 1/3 more than the other? The reason we have so many quirks now is BECAUSE only a fraction of the mechs in the game are even close to the correct size. It's the reason that 2 mechs of the same tonnage, with the same basic shape will get completely different quirks. It's the reason that the Blackjack is survivable while the Vindicator is squishy.

So by making all mech models normalized, this should actually REDUCE the need for structural and armor quirks to compensate for mechs of the same tonnage being different sizes. At that point, you only need to compensate for truly awkward geometry and hitboxes... or to differentiate mechs based on their trade-offs.

I really don't get what your issue is here. I think this is literally the first time I'm aware of in the history of MWO where they're not making a change based purely on subjective "feels."

What argument can be made against this?... please give me one that makes any sense and you might be able to sway me. So far, all anyone has been able to say is, "I think the Blackjack is fine the way it is... it's all the other mechs that are too big." And that, my friend, is a massive logic fail. You're talking perception, not real tangible, quantifiable OR qualifiable information. It's just "feels." And I can't really argue "feels," because it's all pure opinion.

But, I can argue the more tangible things people have said... including you.

You said surface area matters more than volume. It doesn't. More maths for you.

The relationship between the volume of a cone, sphere, and cylinder with a base of the same radius and a height equal to 2x the radius is 1:2:3. That means the sphere has 2x the volume of the cone, and the cylinder has 3x the volume of the cone. This also means the mass is 1:2:3. So... surface area for those objects is exactly the same ratio. The surface area of the sphere is 2x the surface area of the cone, and the cylinder has 3x the surface area of the cone. So the relationship between volume and surface area is exactly the same.

So if you scale mechs by surface area, you're also scaling by volume and vice versa... more surface-efficient shapes will automatically end up smaller - having a smaller ratio between surface area and volume. In that sort of scenario, the BlackJack, which is very squarish and has a poorly-efficient shape, will end up larger than the Vindicator, which is round and has a shape with better efficiency. Not by much... but still larger. This is the same exact result you'd get by doing this by volume.

Not a huge dimensional difference between the two mechs, mind you... maybe a few percent here or there, but otherwise the same result whether using surface area or volume as your baseline. And by using volume directly, you can ensure that the object you're sizing will have the correct weight... which is something Battletech cares greatly about. In fact, volume is the ONLY way to ensure that two objects that are supposed to weight the same have the same size. Surface are can end up being somewhat fudgeable.

That's due to the various odds and ends on models that are mostly flash... like the fins on the Centurion's head and shoulder that contribute mostly to surface area rather than volume... but that highlights the next point about surface area versus profile.

When you're talking about the pixels you shoot at, you're actually worried about profile. But which profile are you concerned about? Based on all the silly pixel-count pics the community has come up with, you only care about the frontal profile. But that's hardly smart, is it? Mechs come in different shapes, right? And shape is what differentiates the profile of two objects of the same volume. Not all of the surfaces of a 3d object contribute to the profile of that object from a given view. But those surfaces are none-the-less there.

If you make the Shadowcat have the same frontal profile of a Blackjack, the Shadowcat will be massively oversized, because the shape of the Shadowcat has much more depth than the Blackjack. They'll have the same frontal profile, but the Shadowcat will also get massive side profiles that the Blackjack won't have. If you want to balance by profile... the pixels you shoot at, as you say... you'd have to account for all possible profiles of that mech.

And it's mathematically impossible to take an average of the profile of a 3d object across an infinite number of possible profiles. The closest you come to a number that represents that? Volume.

Volume is by far the most accurate, most objective... most fair and impartial... way to scale these mechs. Period.

Again, science doesn't care what you believe.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 01 May 2016 - 12:38 PM.

[Ultimax]

LT. HARDCASE, on 01 May 2016 - 11:35 AM, said:

But you're so bullheadedly convinced that they are 100% right, there's no reasoning with you. Not once in this entire thread have you typed one sentence that showed you're even listening to other people's arguments. That is very frustrating,

That's why players like him post here and not on Outreach.

They can spam-jack a thread with walls of texts that bury any solid viewpoints that disagree with their own behind pages and pages of their spam, basically you just need to be stubborn and prolific.

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 01 May 2016 - 12:30 PM, said:

And in terms of gameplay balance... how can you expect to balance two mechs that are supposed to weigh the exact same amount, but one actually weighs 1/3 more than the other? The reason we have so many quirks now is BECAUSE only a fraction of the mechs in the game are even close to the correct size. It's the reason that 2 mechs of the same tonnage, with the same basic shape will get completely different quirks. It's the reason that the Blackjack is survivable while the Vindicator is squishy.

Size is not the reason we have so many quirks. If that's what you believe, then you should exit the thread now because you have a fundamental ignorance that you need to spend a few days rectifying before you can carry a discussion with any credibility. Size contributes to the necessity of quirks, but it's a tertiary concern. The Blackjack was also not survivable before structure buffs. Not at all. One 35-point PPFLD shot to the side and you were effectively out because the next one would kill you. And because it was slow, that made it easy to hit. That is why it got structure buffs. That is why it got laser duration quirks to reduce exposure. That is why it got range quirks to let it attack from safer distances. That is why it got heat-gen quirks to make it dangerous enough to actually win an engagement with other 'Mechs on the field in Light or Medium weight brackets.

That the Vindicator is left out in the garbage pile is purely a blunder by PGI and not the result of some well-calculated master plan.

Quote

And it's mathematically impossible to take an average of the profile of a 3d object across an infinite number of possible profiles. The closest you come to a number that represents that? Volume.

You don't need an infinite number of possible angles, you only need three. You think real tanks are shaped to maximize defence from an infinite number of angles? F*ck no, they optimize for the frontal profile first, sides second, and d*mn the top because to do anything else is not economical.

And no, volume doesn't represent it, because volume is agnostic toward shape. Shape is the issue, not total big-ness.

Quote

Volume is by far the most accurate, most objective... most fair and impartial... way to scale these mechs. Period.

Again, science doesn't care what you believe.

You should heed your own advice, because the first statement is false.

[ScarecrowES]

Ultimax, on 01 May 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

That's why players like him post here and not on Outreach.

They can spam-jack a thread with walls of texts that bury any solid viewpoints that disagree with their own behind pages and pages of their spam, basically you just need to be stubborn and prolific.

Sorry, this is a silly statement... I post here because these are the official forums, and PGI cares even less about Outreach than it does about THESE forums.

Beyond that, you're exercising the fallacy that the popularity of an opinion matters in the least to its correctness. Whether you like my view or not, there's no argument that it's wrong. Again, science doesn't care what you believe. You know here in America - and this is super embarrassing - we have the lowest population of people in the civilized world who believe Evolution is a thing. Seriously. The fact that such a large group of people doesn't believe in it doesn't make that belief valid. But in an environment based on "likes," you'd think not believing in evolution was a totally rational and valid stance to have.

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 01 May 2016 - 01:07 PM, said:

Sorry, this is a silly statement... I post here because these are the official forums, and PGI cares even less about Outreach than it does about THESE forums.

Beyond that, you're exercising the fallacy that the popularity of an opinion matters in the least to its correctness. Whether you like my view or not, there's no argument that it's wrong. Again, science doesn't care what you believe. You know here in America - and this is super embarrassing - we have the lowest population of people in the civilized world who believe Evolution is a thing. Seriously. The fact that such a large group of people doesn't believe in it doesn't make that belief valid. But in an environment based on "likes," you'd think not believing in evolution was a totally rational and valid stance to have.

But there is arguing that it's wrong, because it factually is wrong.

As for your "science, b*tch!" posture...well, I hate to break it to you, but:

[Ultimax]

ScarecrowES, on 01 May 2016 - 01:07 PM, said:

Sorry, this is a silly statement... I post here because these are the official forums, and PGI cares even less about Outreach than it does about THESE forums.

Beyond that, you're exercising the fallacy that the popularity of an opinion matters in the least to its correctness. Whether you like my view or not, there's no argument that it's wrong. Again, science doesn't care what you believe. You know here in America - and this is super embarrassing - we have the lowest population of people in the civilized world who believe Evolution is a thing. Seriously. The fact that such a large group of people doesn't believe in it doesn't make that belief valid. But in an environment based on "likes," you'd think not believing in evolution was a totally rational and valid stance to have.

Popularity isn't the point, the point is someone stubborn and agenda driven can't attempt to simply derail a thread with walls of text burying opposing viewpoints.


That's a fact.


Second just repeating the word "Science" over and over makes you look like a child.

You can use a scientific approach, based on a flawed premise and end up being wrong.

That is what PGI is doing.


None of us have a problem with PGI using math to calculate proper volumes, we have a problem with (once again, as they have done repeatedly) them apparently losing sight of why all of this was a conversation among players to begin with.


We wanted specific mechs SCALED DOWN because they were TOO BIG, this made them EASY TO KILL.

That's reality, whether you want to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "science" like a 5 year old is your prerogative.

[ScarecrowES]

Ultimax, on 01 May 2016 - 01:18 PM, said:

Popularity isn't the point, the point is someone stubborn and agenda driven can't attempt to simply derail a thread with walls of text burying opposing viewpoints.


That's a fact.


Second just repeating the word "Science" over and over makes you look like a child.

You can use a scientific approach, based on a flawed premise and end up being wrong.

That is what PGI is doing.


None of us have a problem with PGI using math to calculate proper volumes, we have a problem with (once again, as they have done repeatedly) them apparently losing sight of why all of this was a conversation among players to begin with.


We wanted specific mechs SCALED DOWN because they were TOO BIG, this made them EASY TO KILL.

That's reality, whether you want to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "science" like a 5 year old is your prerogative.

But you actually DO have a problem using science to determine the size of the mechs during rescale. The entire point of your argument is that you don't WANT them to rescale based on an objective standard. You want them to scale based on the particular opinion of a handful of players... and not even the opinion of the entire swath of mechs, but on only specific mechs in the bunch.

That's actually the opposite of an objective and scientific approach.

And here's a point... whose opinion gets to be the reference here? Most of the community can't even agree on what needs to be rescaled. The polls PGI put out proved quite clearly that beyond the 3 most obvious offenders, noone could agree on anything else.

And let's look at that opinion... You have a selection of 4 mechs that are supposed to weight the same amount. The vast majority of player seeing those 4 mechs side-by-side agree that 3 out of 4 of those mechs are roughly the same size, and that the 4th is smaller than the other 3. A 5 year old can tell which thing in a set doesn't belong. Now, it'd probably be the smartest thing to do... the most objective, to raise the one mech that doesn't fit up to the size of the other 3. Why would you modify the other 3, right?

Buuuuut... that one thing that doesn't belong, in this case, is the Blackjack. The Blackjack is the odd-man-out. And because it's the Blackjack, certain people don't want to change it. What sense does that make?

What PGI is doing is even more objective than that... they're not even looking at mechs compared to one another... they're just making them the actual correct size... period. No opinion required.

And that's the real problem here. This half-assed and subjective approach that you want. "Touch this mech, not that mech." No, you can't really have it both ways. If you say, "we want mechs to be the right size," you don't get to say, "but only THESE mechs need to be the right size... it's ok if these ones are wrong." You don't get to cry about mechs being unbalanced because of their size, but then complain when all their sizes get normalized.

You guys are seriously crying that one mech that's generally acknowledged to be overpowered... and there's really no argument there... is being made, potentially - though we have no actual idea without seeing exactly how it plays - slightly bigger... I mean... how DARE PGI make a 45-ton mech the same size as all other 45-ton mechs!

It's exactly what the community wanted... it's accomplishing that goal... but it's touching ALL the mechs, not just a few. And really, why shouldn't they?

Why wait until after we rescale a bunch of big offenders to have the community go, "wait, you made 2 out of 4 45-ton mechs the right size, and now the other two suck because they're the wrong size. Why didn't you do ALL the mechs together." Because if you half-*** and piecemeal this process, that's exactly what will happen.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 01 May 2016 - 01:43 PM.

[Volthorne]

Ultimax, on 01 May 2016 - 01:18 PM, said:

We wanted specific mechs SCALED DOWN because they were TOO BIG, this made them EASY TO KILL.

Okay, so those SPECIFIC 'Mechs get scaled down. Their hitboxes, hardpoint count, and hardpoint locations are still atrocious. That makes them harder to kill... how? And what happens to the 'Mechs that were "sort-of okay, but only because there are worse options"? Would there be a years-long campaign to get THEM scaled down too because they are now "too big"? What about any 'Mechs which may be too small? Obviously no one is going to campaign to make them bigger, because this community can't make up it's f*cking mind on whether or not it likes a level playing field (Answer: Mostly. But not in some circumstances. Because reasons, or something.).

Regardless of what anyone has said in this topic so far, bar Wintersdark (Scarecrow was getting close but didn't quite hit the mark Mid-post edit: Scarecrow actually got it this time), doing a full rescale of EVERYTHING instead of SOME things makes sense for two reasons:

ONE: less time and resources spent overall instead of having to come back and look at potential re-re-scaling at a later point in time.

And TWO: making 'Mech choice be less about "which 'Mech for a given weight is the smallest and has the most weapons" and more about "what profile, selection of hardpoints, and quirks fit the role I want to build for".

[ScarecrowES]

Volthorne, on 01 May 2016 - 01:52 PM, said:

(Scarecrow was getting close but didn't quite hit the mark Mid-post edit: Scarecrow actually got it this time),

In fairness, I've been fully arguing that rescaling everything at the same time was the only right thing to do. It wasn't just "this time."