413 replies to this topic

[Satan n stuff]

If you're going to scale anything in a shooter where the only value that's actually important is the profile surface area because it is what determines how often you get hit, you should be scaling based on that.

Run linetraces pointed at the mech's model from every direction on the horizontal plane at a set interval ( because vertical profile isn't really relevant in MWO ) for the entire mech's height ( also at a set interval ) , the number of traces that connect gives a pretty accurate representation of how easy it is to shoot the mech. Repeat for different animation and damage states as necessary and get the average of those measurements.
That's at worst a few hours of work to implement for a half decent programmer.

[LT. HARDCASE]

No one has an issue with PGI setting a baseline. Stop throwing that strawman out there. The issue is that it appears this baseline in particular is based on an incorrect premise.

What good is a new baseline that's completely off the mark? That's all that most of us are asking.

There's pretty much zero chance they will do all this work just to do another game wide rescale, so if they screw it up this time, we're stuck with it for a long, long time.

Satan n stuff, on 02 May 2016 - 01:34 PM, said:

If you're going to scale anything in a shooter where the only value that's actually important is the profile surface area because it is what determines how often you get hit, you should be scaling based on that.

Run linetraces pointed at the mech's model from every direction on the horizontal plane at a set interval ( because vertical profile isn't really relevant in MWO ) for the entire mech's height ( also at a set interval ) , the number of traces that connect gives a pretty accurate representation of how easy it is to shoot the mech. Repeat for different animation and damage states as necessary and get the average of those measurements.
That's at worst a few hours of work to implement for a half decent programmer.

The odds of them having put in that much work, is... well you know.

Edited by LT. HARDCASE, 02 May 2016 - 02:09 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

LT. HARDCASE, on 02 May 2016 - 02:07 PM, said:

No one has an issue with PGI setting a baseline. Stop throwing that strawman out there. The issue is that it appears this baseline in particular is based on an incorrect premise.

What good is a new baseline that's completely off the mark? That's all that most of us are asking.

There's pretty much zero chance they will do all this work just to do another game wide rescale, so if they screw it up this time, we're stuck with it for a long, long time.


The odds of them having put in that much work, is... well you know.

Completely off the mark according to what? Is there an another objective option? Because the only alternatives given in this thread to using volume have been entirely SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE.

Now, there's quite a bit of disparity between the few folks arguing against volume, so I can't exactly pin you all into the same pile... but the basic crux of all those arguments is that every mech should have been scaled according to it's own perception. No set rule for establishing a universal normalization... just eyeball the mechs, see what feels right, and tweak just the ones that seem the worst off from those feels.

Some people want to use surface area... which I've already shown will have a nearly identical result to normalizing by volume, with very little variation even in the most cluttered mechs - the math is pretty clear on this. Some people would prefer to go by profile, despite the fact that it's been demonstrated it's literally impossible to quanitify the "profile" of a mech from an infinite number of angles and the fact that the ease of hitting a mech based on profile is entirely subjective, so you can't even qualify it to any standard. Profile, then, is just more perception and feels.

Some people don't want to use anything at all. They just want the Blackjack to stay what it is now, and will plop down any rationale that seems to support this view.

And regardless of what the alternative put forth is... it's not objective, it's not comprehensive, and it's not fair or unbiased. Tonnage is the most important quality of a mech in Battletech. Everything in terms of how a mech was built to the types and amount of equipment it can carry is based on tonnage. How it performs is based on tonnage. How they're balanced against each other is based on tonnage. How individual players and teams are set against each other in matchmaking is based on tonnage.

Normalizing for tonnage isn't just the obvious choice, it's likely the ONLY choice that doesn't immediately break down into PGI eye-balling every mech and applying "feels" again, just like every initial scale and quirk pass we've ever got.

So yeah, some mechs are getting bigger. The paradigm is shifting. The king is dead, long live the king.

Like it or not, there's absolutely nothing that's going to change this process at this point. This is the new paradigm. All the new mechs in-works since the rescale project started are already on the new scale. A large portion of mechs that needed adjustment have already been finished. This isn't going away, no matter how hard you fight it.

Will additional balancing be required after the rescales are dropped? Absolutely. Mechs that used to suck might be better now. Mechs that used to need structure or armor quirks to get by might not need them anymore. And, some mechs that used to squeek under the radar before might actually need them now. Hell, there's chance that whole tonnage categories might now need buffs, instead of just a handful of those. We really don't know exactly how balance will be effected.

What we can say for sure though... we'll never be able to blame the size of a mech for it's performance ever again.

[Y E O N N E]

"Objective"

Let's see, where did I put it...aha!

Yeonne Greene, on 01 May 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

[ScarecrowES]

Yeonne Greene, on 02 May 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:

"Objective"

Let's see, where did I put it...aha!

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral
"I was hoping to get an objective and pragmatic report"


So objective... presenting a point of view based on something that is absolutely and quantifiably true. IE, NOT based on perception, subjectivity, or "feels."

So yes, it's exactly what I think it means. Are you sure YOU know what it means?

Objective Example: "Based on a chosen reference point for mech density - determined by examining all available mech volumes and chosing a value that represents the largest "accurate" pool of mechs - the volume of the Blackjack is found to have a volume too small for it's listed tonnage. Thus the Blackjack is too small and needs its volume increased."

Subjective Example: "I feel like balance for the Blackjack is in a pretty good place right now. Now that it has a crap-ton of quirks that make it harder to kill than other mechs of the same tonnage, I don't feel like I'm being punished for taking a weaker mech. It's pretty good to get all of the advantages of a larger and more powerful mech while actually being much smaller in size. Even though it's by far the smallest 45-tonner, and out-competes most mechs within 20 tons of it, we should just leave it the way it is, and make every other mech just as good as this one. That makes total sense."

So, you get objective vs subjective, right?

Edited by ScarecrowES, 02 May 2016 - 03:34 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Here's another definition for you:

Quote

Noun: something toward which effort is directed: an aim, goal, or end of action

The two definitions are mutually inclusive. To best satisfy an objective, one must remain objective in mind. Conversely, to remain objective in mind, you need an objective to compare against. The objective here is, implicitly, to improve the game-play without betraying the game's core conceit. You are letting your opinion that using an impartial but completely arbitrary modifier for volume is factually beneficial to the game. Which is hilarious because:

A.) You think this game plays like the little numbers on your UI try to describe it
B.) You think lighter 'Mechs should be inferior to heavier 'Mechs
C.) You think 'Mechs actually make real trade-offs in speed to gain firepower and vice versa
D.) You think that relative 'Mech sizes means anything in a game where bigger is easier to hit in absolute terms
E.) You think that volume is the correct measure to use when deciding if a 'Mech needs to be made larger or smaller despite the fact that very specific profiles are what determine targetability
F.) You think whatever modifier PGI chose to augment 'Mech volume is inherently good
G.) You continuously ignore the fact that the chosen modifier is, as mentioned, completely arbitrary in its own right
H.) That you think complaining about 'Mech size relative to mass will not be a qualified argument after this re-scale (see points E through G)

So, yeah. You do not know what that word means.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 02 May 2016 - 04:49 PM.

[cazidin]

I think it'd really help if PGI engaged in more open communication about their method for achieving better scale. If we knew and understood their process we could better critique if necessary but there's no reason that I can think of for why they don't simply tell us.

[Volthorne]

Yeonne Greene, on 02 May 2016 - 04:49 PM, said:

E.) You think that volume is the correct measure to use when deciding if a 'Mech needs to be made larger or smaller despite the fact that very specific profiles are what determine targetability
F.) You think whatever modifier PGI chose to augment 'Mech volume is inherently good
G.) You continuously ignore the fact that the chosen modifier is, as mentioned, completely arbitrary in its own right

So what, in your oh-so-informed-and-definitely-not-wrong opinion would be a CORRECT method of scaling, and, that despite also being completely arbitrary, is completely fair and impartial to ALL of the other 'Mechs and involves as little work as possible for the desired effect, which is to eliminate size as a balance factor between 'Mechs of the same weight?

Edited by Volthorne, 02 May 2016 - 06:19 PM.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

Yeonne Greene, on 02 May 2016 - 04:49 PM, said:

Here's another definition for you:



The two definitions are mutually inclusive. To best satisfy an objective, one must remain objective in mind. Conversely, to remain objective in mind, you need an objective to compare against. The objective here is, implicitly, to improve the game-play without betraying the game's core conceit. You are letting your opinion that using an impartial but completely arbitrary modifier for volume is factually beneficial to the game. Which is hilarious because:

A.) You think this game plays like the little numbers on your UI try to describe it
B.) You think lighter 'Mechs should be inferior to heavier 'Mechs
C.) You think 'Mechs actually make real trade-offs in speed to gain firepower and vice versa
D.) You think that relative 'Mech sizes means anything in a game where bigger is easier to hit in absolute terms
E.) You think that volume is the correct measure to use when deciding if a 'Mech needs to be made larger or smaller despite the fact that very specific profiles are what determine targetability
F.) You think whatever modifier PGI chose to augment 'Mech volume is inherently good
G.) You continuously ignore the fact that the chosen modifier is, as mentioned, completely arbitrary in its own right
H.) That you think complaining about 'Mech size relative to mass will not be a qualified argument after this re-scale (see points E through G)

So, yeah. You do not know what that word means.

[Mcgral18]

Yeonne Greene, on 02 May 2016 - 04:49 PM, said:

So, yeah. You do not know what that word means.

Bro, that's so Meta

[LT. HARDCASE]

Volthorne, on 02 May 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

So what, in your oh-so-informed-and-definitely-not-wrong opinion would be a CORRECT method of scaling, and, that despite also being completely arbitrary, is completely fair and impartial to ALL of the other 'Mechs and involves as little work as possible for the desired effect, which is to eliminate size as a balance factor between 'Mechs of the same weight?

The moment "as little work as possible" was one of the primary goals, it was destined to fail.

[Volthorne]

LT. HARDCASE, on 02 May 2016 - 06:38 PM, said:

The moment "as little work as possible" was one of the primary goals, it was destined to fail.

Sorry, let me rephrase that: "as efficiently as possible". I can even go and get the definition of efficiency if you're unsure as to what it means. Complicated isn't always better. Usually never, actually.

Also, if you're a clairvoyant, could you tell me what next week's winning lottery numbers are? That should be easy for someone who can accurately predict how something two months away will turn out.

Edited by Volthorne, 02 May 2016 - 06:53 PM.

[LordBraxton]

make a medium mech larger? I dont even play MWO, and only lurk occasionally to see if there are any changes worth coming back for.

How could it get this bad??

[Wintersdark]

Catra Lanis, on 02 May 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

They are now as far as I understand. What I'm asking is why didn't they (if they used a reference already in the beginning) make sure that every mech they released afterwards was the correct scale even if it meant a delay for each mech?

This sounds like building your house and not installing the plastic pipes for wiring so when the house is done you have to tear up the walls and redo it. It's more work in the long run.

They hadn't settled on a method (two methods, actually) in the very beginning. The earliest stages where design, then research to see which mechs needed to be changed. It wasn't till later when they came to the realisation that most mechs needed to be changed, and found a way to streamline the process, while deciding on the actual methods they'd use.

Thus, mechs already in the pipeline (Archer, for example) where left to be for the time being (presumably to ensure they'd release on time), and pulled into the process later.

[Wintersdark]

Volthorne, on 02 May 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

So what, in your oh-so-informed-and-definitely-not-wrong opinion would be a CORRECT method of scaling, and, that despite also being completely arbitrary, is completely fair and impartial to ALL of the other 'Mechs and involves as little work as possible for the desired effect, which is to eliminate size as a balance factor between 'Mechs of the same weight?

Well, this is the problem.

They could custom scale all the mechs, but that'll end up every bit as bad and likely worse as all their other major rebalance projects.

It totally baffles me that anyone thinks they could custom scale hundreds of mechs and not have it be a total, utter ***********. And it's all these guys who know how bad PGI is at this, who complain with every major rebalance pass that they've screwed up all these individual parts (not incorrectly, mind, PGI *does* screw these things up).

The realistic alternative to scaling by volume is scaling by Paul.

Edited by Wintersdark, 02 May 2016 - 07:57 PM.

[Khobai]

blackjack should be size of Atlas

[Ryllen Kriel]

I truly hope, as a Blackjack pilot, that they increase the size of the mech to twice that of an Atlas with a prominent codpiece that extends to the horizon. Huzzzah!

[YueFei]

ScarecrowES, on 01 May 2016 - 06:06 PM, said:

Just to be clear... every single mode in this game except for Solo Quick Play places specific... and I mean SPECIFIC... emphasis on the exact weight of the mech you're bringing in a drop, as does every league or tournament you're likely to get into. In Faction Play and in Group Quick Play, your actual drop tonnage is strictly limited.

Solo Quick Play limits your personal mech selection only to Class, but matchmaker still tries to balance total team tonnage. So while absolute tonnage per class doesn't matter as MUCH in Solo, it still matters.

A 65-ton mech should absolutely be better than a 45-ton mech. No contest. For that matter, a 55-ton mech should be better than a 45-ton mech - and there is only ONE mode in MWO where that 10 tons doesn't matter to the game.

So yeah... a 45-ton mech should perform like a 45-ton mech. Not like a 55-tonner, and not like a 65-tonner.

You can bring whatever mech to the party you want... you just need to accept it's going to perform according to its tonnage. 45-tonners aren't going to be the best mediums just the same as 65-tonners aren't going to be the best heavies.

What it sounds like is that some folks want a 45-tonner to perform as well as a 55-tonner. "Why should I be punished for picking a lighter medium?" Well, because you picked a lighter medium. It's got less armor, and often less firepower. It's just not as good as the heavier mech.

If you went into Solo pugs and you picked a weaker mech when you really didn't have to, that's on you. Whatever mech you chose will have to try to perform according to its strengths if you're able to play it that way. If you went into Group Queue or FW and put a 45-tonner in there, I assume you did it to save 10-tons of space for another mech in your group or drop deck. So you got rewarded elsewhere for taking the hit on the lighter medium.

But you shouldn't get to pick a weaker mech at a lower tonnage AND have that mech perform as well as a heavier mech. That's not to say that it can't perform. Noone is going to say that the Cicada isn't a worthwhile mech to have in your deck... but if you're rocking a Cicada, you're going to make peace with the fact that you're going to be all speed and no guts. If you're in a Blackjack, you should make peace with the fact that you're a glass canon.

Lame.

If the sport of Gridiron Football were to be redesigned by you, it'd be filled with nothing but 350+ pound dudes on both teams. And boring as all hell.

I'm glad that sport was designed in such a way that teams organically field players of differing sizes, builds, and speeds. Not because of any artificially-imposed restrictions by the rules of the sport, but because that's just naturally the best way to compose a team.

You realize PGI promised from the outset of this game that MWO would be balanced in such a way as to avoid the tonnage race as in Mechwarrior games in the past? The pillars of Information Warfare and Role Warfare? Why do you act surprised when players actually have an expectation of this when it was advertised so in the beginning?

[Cyborne Elemental]

If BJ gets scaled up, I honestly hope they redistribute the hitboxes on that thing..

Its a difficult one to balance out for sure, but it seems like a CT magnet.

Been playing Bjacks on/off since the first day I started on MWO, I still have my first BJ-1 I bought for Cbills and put camo on it, been a great medium mech, but thing is literally all CT.

The one thing that always bothered me with the BJ platform, the 1X and DC being given narrow torso twist radius, while the 1, Arrow, and 3 have a great twist range even though they get the benefit of JJ's as well.
I always though that should be reversed, giving the ground locked BJ's the better twist range, while sticking to 95 or something for the JJ versions just makes more sense.

[Y E O N N E]

Mister D, on 03 May 2016 - 12:15 AM, said:

Been playing Bjacks on/off since the first day I started on MWO, I still have my first BJ-1 I bought for Cbills and put camo on it, been a great medium mech, but thing is literally all CT.

The one thing that always bothered me with the BJ platform, the 1X and DC being given narrow torso twist radius, while the 1, Arrow, and 3 have a great twist range even though they get the benefit of JJ's as well.
I always though that should be reversed, giving the ground locked BJ's the better twist range, while sticking to 95 or something for the JJ versions just makes more sense.

I think the twist range is because of the firepower. On the pre-Clan 'Mechs, PGI would limit agility on the variants with the most/best guns. BLR-1G/3M have the same problem. Even the Locust variants do this.

Of course, then the Storm Crow came out with its ten million guns and at-the-time god-like agility and twist-range, and all bets were off.

Also, the Arrow has the restricted 90 degree torso twist, same as the BJ-1DC.