413 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

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.

Ok... since you've gone full ****** on this... "mutually inclusive?" Really? Are you reaching this far right now as to say that two different uses of the same word in two completely different definitions caused by two different compositions are somehow mutually inclusive? Because, once again, reality is against you on this. Not only do you not understand math or science, but you don't even understand language. WTF.

So... since you want to base scale on profile... it's mathematically impossible to quantify a standard measurement based on an infinite number of profiles of a 3d object. It's literally beyond the scope of math. But, if you were to try to translate that data into a form you CAN quantify, it would end up being volume.

Seriously... take a picture of a mech from every possible angle... the shape you end up will excludes every possible bit of surface area that doesnt directly contribute to profile. A quantification you'd receive would be identical to a relative representation of volume.

In fact, one form of technology that lets us build a digital 3d model of a real world object does this exact same process.

So if you want a rescale process where mechs are resized based on their physical profile from every angle, you will get the exact same result if you did it by volume. Exact same result.

[Sjorpha]

Yvonne Greene: "objective" in the sense of "goal" and "objective" in the sense of "non-subjective" are different words that happens to share the same spelling.

They're not even the same word class, they're different the same way "happy" and "rock" are different.

Scarecrow: I think the argument for using profiles rests on the idea that you should only scale based on horizontal plane, and that would be the difference from volume. I completely disagree with that idea, but at least it makes that argument somewhat intelligible.

Edited by Sjorpha, 03 May 2016 - 07:10 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

Sjorpha, on 03 May 2016 - 07:05 AM, said:

Scarecrow: I think the argument for using profiles rests on the idea that you should only scale based on horizontal plane, and that would be the difference from volume. I completely disagree with that idea, but at least it makes that argument somewhat intelligible.

And looking only at the horizontal plane... or technically those surfaces that only represent in the vertical plane... would be fine, if we then make every surface that is arranged more than 45 degrees to the horizontal unable to be hit.

That would probably be workable if maps were completely flat, all mechs were the same height, no mechs could jump, and there were no LRMs. Buuuut, since that's not the case, we gotta look at mechs from every angle.

But let's say we do that... just use, basically, orthographics from a horizontal view. Some surfaces that are in the horizontal plane will still be partially represented, and even if others are obscured their connecting vertical surfaces will not be.

While the result will be far less accurate, math says the representation of surface area you get will still be equivalent to volume. The ratio between the average surface area of two mechs and the volume of two mechs is the same.

The more views you take, and the greater variety of angles you use, the more accurate that surface area estimation will be, and the closer it will be to volume.

But that seems like a lot of work... taking snapshots, counting pixels, doing maths.... just to get a less accurate version of the same exact ratio result a simple volume check gives you.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 03 May 2016 - 08:19 AM.

[LordBraxton]

People on this forum are actually defending the idea of INCREASING the size of a MEDIUM mech?!?!?

Wtf have we come to!??!

[Barantor]

LordBraxton, on 03 May 2016 - 08:20 AM, said:

People on this forum are actually defending the idea of INCREASING the size of a MEDIUM mech?!?!?

Wtf have we come to!??!

I would rather everything be based off numbers than based off the whims of whoever decides it that week.

After that you use whatever system to balance it out (quirks, weapons, whatever) and see. Having a baseline is important, even if it alters the current meta!

[ScarecrowES]

YueFei, on 02 May 2016 - 11:46 PM, said:

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?

Your base analogy is a good one, but youre completely misunderstanding my position. My argument would be more like: why should you expect that a 180-pound lineman will be able to do his job as well as a 350-pound lineman. If you put the light-weight on the line against the heavy-weight, the light-weight will get stomped... as he should.

If You're 180 pounds in a game where 350-pounds are trying to hit you, and you don't have the speed or agility to get out of the way of those hits, you're going to get hit a lot and it's going to hurt.

So as a 180-pound dude, that can't run, can't dodge, and cant take a hit... but has a crap-ton of power to put the ball down field.... you really have one job that works for you... you're the kicker.

But the argument here is that folks want the Blackjack to play lineman as well as the 350-pound boys. It can't. Because it's not built to be a lineman. It's the kicker.

[Deathlike]

Wintersdark, on 02 May 2016 - 07:57 PM, said:

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.

There's not enough NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO forum memes that express how much this is the beginning of the end of the universe and how this is the perfectly executed joke that's killing me inside.

Edited by Deathlike, 03 May 2016 - 08:55 AM.

[Sjorpha]

ScarecrowES, on 03 May 2016 - 08:06 AM, said:

And looking only at the horizontal plane... or technically those surfaces that only represent in the vertical plane... would be fine, if we then make every surface that is arranged more than 45 degrees to the horizontal unable to be hit.

That would probably be workable if maps were completely flat, all mechs were the same height, no mechs could jump, and there were no LRMs. Buuuut, since that's not the case, we gotta look at mechs from every angle.

But let's say we do that... just use, basically, orthographics from a horizontal view. Some surfaces that are in the horizontal plane will still be partially represented, and even if others are obscured their connecting vertical surfaces will not be.

While the result will be far less accurate, math says the representation of surface area you get will still be equivalent to volume. The ratio between the average surface area of two mechs and the volume of two mechs is the same.

The more views you take, and the greater variety of angles you use, the more accurate that surface area estimation will be, and the closer it will be to volume.

But that seems like a lot of work... taking snapshots, counting pixels, doing maths.... just to get a less accurate version of the same exact ratio result a simple volume check gives you.

As I said, I'm not arguing for that position.

My position is that mechs should be volumetrically scaled with a slight linear decrease in density, so lighter mechs are slightly denser than heavier ones.

I was just trying to understand the profile argument, if you argue against it without correctly representing their position you're making a straw man even if the actual position is also ridiculous, which I totally agree that it is. So yeah .

[ScarecrowES]

Sjorpha, on 03 May 2016 - 09:02 AM, said:

My position is that mechs should be volumetrically scaled with a slight linear decrease in density, so lighter mechs are slightly denser than heavier ones.

And you know what... that would be a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for. I might even support it if it could be shown to aid balance...

But unfortunately that still won't keep the Blackjack from getting bigger. There is no standard - applied universally - that will keep the Blackjack the same size it is now relative to other mechs.

[Wintersdark]

Barantor, on 03 May 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

I would rather everything be based off numbers than based off the whims of whoever decides it that week.

Yup. Again, the realistic alternative to scale by volume is scale by Paul. We know how that ends.

Quote

After that you use whatever system to balance it out (quirks, weapons, whatever) and see. Having a baseline is important, even if it alters the current meta!

Exactly.

[mogs01gt]

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

Mathematical relationship of volume for differently shaped objects... time for science, folks.
A cone, a sphere, and a cylinder... all with a base (circle) of the same radius, and thus the same surface area, and all the same height (effectively 2x the radius of the base, or 1x the diameter).


The relationship of the volume of those 3 objects is the ratio 1 : 2 : 3. The cone is a volume ratio of 1. The sphere's Volume is 2x the volume of the cone. The cylinder's volume is 3x the volume of the cone.
Let's correlate the volume to an actual unit of measure. Assume the cylinder volume with a given density equals 100 tons of weight (Atlas). That means the sphere represents 66.67 tons of weight (Catapult), and the cone represents 33.33 tons of weight (Raven).All 3 objects have some of the same dimensions. The height is exactly the same, as are the dimensions of the base circle and the surface area of that circle. Looking at the height of the objects, you say, "wait, these are all the same size, because the cone is the same height as the cylinder." Or you say, "the cone is too big, because the base presents the same size target as the cylinder."
Again, math doesn't care what your perception is. This is the reality of volume.

No1 gives a **** about volume. What matters is surface area/ # of pixels. Mech's surface areas/pixels need scaled down starting from a specific number, I say start at 100 tonners.

MWO has an issue where each armor piece, ST/CT/etc. acts as a whole. Armor doesnt act as a one piece. You must penetrate the same location multiple times or risk spread dmg all across the same piece of armor. It was mentioned in another thread, not sure who posted it. Maybe it was UltimaX

Edited by mogs01gt, 03 May 2016 - 12:59 PM.

[Sjorpha]

ScarecrowES, on 03 May 2016 - 10:34 AM, said:

And you know what... that would be a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for. I might even support it if it could be shown to aid balance...

But unfortunately that still won't keep the Blackjack from getting bigger. There is no standard - applied universally - that will keep the Blackjack the same size it is now relative to other mechs.

That's a good thing. If the Blackjack is underscaled in relation to the scaling system it should be scaled up to it's correct size, obviously.

Your cone/sphere/cylinder example illustrates perfectly why I think it would be reasonable to have a slight linear decrease of density from low to high tonnage, I think the differences in size needs to be a little boosted so people don't feel like the size differences between different weights are too small, which I'm pretty sure will happen if they do equal density for all mechs.

After all the volumetric increase needed to double height of an object is 8x, so an 80 ton mech is twice the size of a 10 ton mech of identical shape under a equal density volumetric system. But I think people like the fact that Atlas is so much bigger than a command etc, so the commando needs to be significantly more dense to retain that difference.

Edited by Sjorpha, 03 May 2016 - 01:54 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

mogs01gt, on 03 May 2016 - 12:57 PM, said:

No1 gives a **** about volume. What matters is surface area/ # of pixels. Mech's surface areas/pixels need scaled down starting from a specific number, I say start at 100 tonners.

MWO has an issue where each armor piece, ST/CT/etc. acts as a whole. Armor doesnt act as a one piece. You must penetrate the same location multiple times or risk spread dmg all across the same piece of armor. It was mentioned in another thread, not sure who posted it. Maybe it was UltimaX

Well, since you obviously haven't been keeping up with the discussion, I've explained about how math is pretty clear that there is a direct relationship between the volume and surface area of an object.

The relationship of volume for a cone, sphere, and cylinder with the same base radius and a height equal to 2r is 1:2:3... the cone is one, the sphere is 2x the volume of the cone, and the cylinder is 3x the volume of the cone. There happens to be the exact same relationship between the surface area of those objects... 1:2:3. In fact, as I've explained, it doesn't matter whether you choose to use volume as the standard for scale, or surface area... while the absolute dimensions produced will be a little different, the relative results will be exactly the same.

I've explained that you can't go directly on surface area, because there are instances where surfaces don't contribute directly to the volume (size) of a mech... like the fins on the head and shoulder of the Centurion... lots of surface, area, almost no volume. I've shown that if you take an infinite set of profiles of a mech, it translates directly to volume. And, as shown above, there is a direct relationship between surface area and volume that would apply consistently across all mechs regardless.

So it really doesn't matter WHAT you use. In the end, the result will be exactly the same, in relative terms. The Blackjack will still be getting increased in size, the Nova will still be getting decreased. No matter the method, when you line all the newly rescaled mechs up by size, every method will put the mechs in exactly the same order, and the same size relative to each other.

The only thing that could be said in favor of any particular method is that using volume is the absolute most accurate possible measurement of mass available here... and since we're concerned about strict adherence to tonnage (since mechs of the same tonnage will have wildly varying shapes)... measuring mass matters most (Oooo... unintentional alliteration)... as it's the only variable in terms of "size" that will be consistent across all shapes of mechs in a given tonnage range.

Sjorpha, on 03 May 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

That's a good thing. If the Blackjack is underscaled in relation to the scaling system it should be scaled up to it's correct size, obviously.

Your cone/sphere/cylinder example illustrates perfectly why I think it would be reasonable to have a slight linear decrease of density from low to high tonnage, I think the differences in size needs to be a little boosted so people don't feel like the size differences between different weights are too small, which I'm pretty sure will happen if they do equal density for all mechs.

After all the volumetric increase needed to double height of an object is 8x, so an 80 ton mech is twice the size of a 10 ton mech of identical shape under a equal density volumetric system. But I think people like the fact that Atlas is so much bigger than a command etc, so the commando needs to be significantly more dense to retain that difference.

Well, thankfully mechs are not cubes, so it won't take that big of an increase in volume to double height. Shape matters in determining where the volume actually ends up.

[Sjorpha]

ScarecrowES, on 03 May 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

Well, thankfully mechs are not cubes, so it won't take that big of an increase in volume to double height. Shape matters in determining where the volume actually ends up.

They are not cubes, but some of the light mechs are proportionally slimmer than some of the assault mechs, which means they will be even taller related to their weight in a strict volumetric scaling. So the problem might actually be much worse than a cube in some cases.

[ScarecrowES]

Sjorpha, on 03 May 2016 - 03:15 PM, said:

They are not cubes, but some of the light mechs are proportionally slimmer than some of the assault mechs, which means they will be even taller related to their weight in a strict volumetric scaling. So the problem might actually be much worse than a cube in some cases.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. If I recall, the Atlas is staying where it's at, and some of the lighter light mechs are still getting smaller. So technically, our max differential in profile, height, whatever between the heaviest mechs and the lightest ones is actually INCREASING over the current set of models. The naysayers worrying about everything getting too close in size over the enlargement of one undersized medium are panicking over nothing.

[Deathlike]

Wintersdark, on 03 May 2016 - 11:12 AM, said:

Yup. Again, the realistic alternative to scale by volume is scale by Paul. We know how that ends.

So, the Vindicator will go through medieval level stretching to become a Shaqhawk.

I await our new Stretch Armstrong overlords.

[mogs01gt]

ScarecrowES, on 03 May 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

Well, since you obviously haven't been keeping up with the discussion, I've explained about how math is pretty clear that there is a direct relationship between the volume and surface area of an object.
The relationship of volume for a cone, sphere, and cylinder with the same base radius and a height equal to 2r is 1:2:3... the cone is one, the sphere is 2x the volume of the cone, and the cylinder is 3x the volume of the cone. There happens to be the exact same relationship between the surface area of those objects... 1:2:3. In fact, as I've explained, it doesn't matter whether you choose to use volume as the standard for scale, or surface area... while the absolute dimensions produced will be a little different, the relative results will be exactly the same.
I've explained that you can't go directly on surface area, because there are instances where surfaces don't contribute directly to the volume (size) of a mech... like the fins on the head and shoulder of the Centurion... lots of surface, area, almost no volume. I've shown that if you take an infinite set of profiles of a mech, it translates directly to volume. And, as shown above, there is a direct relationship between surface area and volume that would apply consistently across all mechs regardless.
So it really doesn't matter WHAT you use. In the end, the result will be exactly the same, in relative terms. The Blackjack will still be getting increased in size, the Nova will still be getting decreased. No matter the method, when you line all the newly rescaled mechs up by size, every method will put the mechs in exactly the same order, and the same size relative to each oth
The only thing that could be said in favor of any particular method is that using volume is the absolute most accurate possible measurement of mass available here... and since we're concerned about strict adherence to tonnage (since mechs of the same tonnage will have wildly varying shapes)... measuring mass matters most (Oooo... unintentional alliteration)... as it's the only variable in terms of "size" that will be consistent across all shapes of mechs in a given tonnage range.

Again, volume means nothing to FPS games. All that matters is the pixels you are shooting at. Mechs with more pixels are easier to hit.

Example why volume doesnt matter:

No matter where I aim on both images; if I aim at the head, Im shooting the bear in the head. If I aim at the eyes, head, if I aim at the forehead, Im still hitting the head. If the bear has reduced in pixels, I have less head to shoot at. That is the issue in MWO. More pixels means easier to hit.

Edited by mogs01gt, 05 May 2016 - 12:39 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

mogs01gt, on 05 May 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

Again, volume means nothing to FPS games. All that matters is the pixels you are shooting at. Mechs with more pixels are easier to hit.

Example why volume doesnt matter:

No matter where I aim on both images; if I aim at the head, Im shooting the bear in the head. If I aim at the eyes, head, if I aim at the forehead, Im still hitting the head. If the bear has reduced in pixels, I have less head to shoot at. That is the issue in MWO. More pixels means easier to hit.

Well done... and as I said... you take a picture of a mech from 100 different angles, use all those 2D images to estimate a reasonable approximation of the size of the mech, compare it to the same result from other mechs, and it will end up having the same scaling relative to each other as just using volume. Because maths.

Unless you mean, only look at the mech from one specific angle. Like that dumb pixel-count chart that only considered what the mech looked like from the front.

I suppose that might be fine if we were playing the original Doom multiplayer and we're all just sprites.

[mogs01gt]

ScarecrowES, on 05 May 2016 - 02:50 PM, said:

Well done... and as I said... you take a picture of a mech from 100 different angles, use all those 2D images to estimate a reasonable approximation of the size of the mech, compare it to the same result from other mechs, and it will end up having the same scaling relative to each other as just using volume. Because maths.

Unless you mean, only look at the mech from one specific angle. Like that dumb pixel-count chart that only considered what the mech looked like from the front.

I suppose that might be fine if we were playing the original Doom multiplayer and we're all just sprites.

Last time I checked, my monitor is flat..We are aiming at a flat surface hence why pixels is all that matters.

[Satan n stuff]

ScarecrowES, on 02 May 2016 - 03:04 PM, said:

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.

It's also literally impossible to quantify coastline length, but we have measurements for those. A standardized measurement would do just fine and isn't even all that hard to implement, so don't give me that crap.