413 replies to this topic

[Sjorpha]

mogs01gt, on 06 May 2016 - 05:57 AM, said:

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

You're still going to see mechs from different angles, and averaging all different angles is still going to be very similar to volumetric scaling.

The exception is mechs that have big holes/dents and convex areas of, such as the blackjack side torso, those would get scaled slightly smaller by profile than by volume.

Volume still makes more sense though, given a certain density it's volume that determines weight so it's more realistic. I agree with PGI here, just scale the mechs realistically and use other systems for game balance.

[operatorZ]

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.

Your doing good work here, educating the seemingly helpless.

This is my first post in maybe a year. But watching you again and again try and teach people the correct way of evaluating mass, volume and surface area in a 3D game, is honestly worth logging in to say, good job. I would have lost my patience ages ago.

[The Lost Boy]

Nerf that mama!

[oldradagast]

The problem with purely looking at volume alone is comparisons of mechs like the Stalker and the Awesome. I'd be willing to bet that if you look at their total volume - their appearance, effectively, from all angles - they are probably not that far off in scale from each other and where they are supposed to be. Except for one small problem - have a large front profile is MUCH worse than having a large side profile, which is why the Awesome falls apart if you look at it while the Stalker just keeps on going. Not all volumes are created equal.

Now, sure - one can use total volume as a place to start, but it would be irresponsible to simply say, "Well, the Awesome and Stalker take up about as much volume as they both should, so they are clearly balanced." That's simply wrong because of the shape of the mechs. Note that I'm not saying mech sizes should be heavily altered based on their shape, but something systematic and logical need to be done to buff mechs that are "technically" the right size, but have horrible shapes / hitboxes. Quirks would fit the bill, but the quirks system thus far has been haphazard and random, so I really don't have much faith in it suddenly becoming a logical system of mech balancing.

Long story short, I expect once this resizing is done, a few real stinker mechs that were laughably oversized will suddenly be playable, a huge number will be made "technically" the right size, but will still be useless because of their shape (both hitboxes and hardpoint placement), and at least one mech will be rendered much weaker after being made larger so it is "technically" the correct size. We will then see a "never forget" thread on that mech and nothing will be done to fix it for years just like the laughable Catapult and its VCR ears.

Edited by oldradagast, 06 May 2016 - 08:08 AM.

[Charles Sennet]

Its small size is another reason it should not have the quirks it does. There are not any weaknesses in the chassis to justify them. PS - How does this mech get quirks and the Orion IIC does not? /Confounded

[Zibmo]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 09:58 AM, said:

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

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

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

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

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

And you know this because you've seen the math?

Having the Blackjack clearly undersized compared to its peers can mean several things: 1) its peers are enormous 2) it's way too small for a 45 ton mech 3) its peers are enormous AND it's too small for its weight class.

Saying "da maths" doesn't mean squat without a reference point. If the reference point is "the Atlas is perfect", then when comparing a 100 ton mech to a 45 ton mech, there should be a significant size difference. Unless, of course (like most of the IS mediums) their gigantic armor encases mostly air.

[Zibmo]

ScarecrowES, on 03 May 2016 - 08:30 AM, said:

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.

What? This analogy is so out there I don't even know where to start. BJ (1 & 3) have been a couple of my favorite mechs since I started. Mine go 93kph. I do NOT expect them to be interior linemen. I do, however, expect to be able to play them. And that means taking a punch. Maybe not a haymaker like Foreman could. Maybe not a nuke. But a punch.

As for "numbers". How does "5" sound to you? It is, after all, a number.

Until we get "da numbers" to do "da mafs" with from PGI, your "objective" is no different than pure speculation. You are defending the as-yet indefensible.

I don't mind if the Blackjacks are scaled up. But if they are scaled up "proportionally" the way the Trebuchet is, it will be a complete and utter joke.

And "as-yet", we don't know.

[oldradagast]

Zibmo, on 06 May 2016 - 08:20 AM, said:

I don't mind if the Blackjacks are scaled up. But if they are scaled up "proportionally" the way the Trebuchet is, it will be a complete and utter joke.

Well, that's another problem. Are they looking at the relative sizes / volumes of all mechs across all weight classes and comparing them to each other, as in "a 55 ton mech should be X size compared to a 100 ton mech based on math," or are they just going, "meh, all of the 55 ton mechs are about this big except for these couple, so we'll just make them all big." I honestly don't know, but I hope the former or this whole exercise is going to be a silly one.

[LT. HARDCASE]

oldradagast, on 06 May 2016 - 08:58 AM, said:

Well, that's another problem. Are they looking at the relative sizes / volumes of all mechs across all weight classes and comparing them to each other, as in "a 55 ton mech should be X size compared to a 100 ton mech based on math," or are they just going, "meh, all of the 55 ton mechs are about this big except for these couple, so we'll just make them all big." I honestly don't know, but I hope the former or this whole exercise is going to be a silly one.

They're taking the path which requires the least amount of work. Easier to choose numbers which scale up a few mechs, than ones which scale down the majority.

[mogs01gt]

Sjorpha, on 06 May 2016 - 06:49 AM, said:

You're still going to see mechs from different angles, and averaging all different angles is still going to be very similar to volumetric scaling.The exception is mechs that have big holes/dents and convex areas of, such as the blackjack side torso, those would get scaled slightly smaller by profile than by volume.Volume still makes more sense though, given a certain density it's volume that determines weight so it's more realistic. I agree with PGI here, just scale the mechs realistically and use other systems for game balance.

Its still a flat surface with zero depth. Stop with this volume non-sense. Players are still aiming at a flat surface that represents a 3d object. Its not 3d object. If the mechs had volume, then armor would have depth and it doesnt. Its a set 0-X amount of armor on each flat surface.

If you are with PGI, you are already in the wrong....


Example:
Draw an X in the middle of a piece of paper(paper=monitor). Now draw a square around....now make that square a cube...The X(point of aim) hasnt changed even though you've now created a 3d image with "volume".

Edited by mogs01gt, 06 May 2016 - 09:51 AM.

[Rampancy]

LT. HARDCASE, on 06 May 2016 - 09:23 AM, said:

They're taking the path which requires the least amount of work. Easier to choose numbers which scale up a few mechs, than ones which scale down the majority.

No, they picked a volume/tonnage ratio that involves scaling down several mechs and scaling up others. Many lights are, in fact, getting smaller.

Threads like this giant crap fest are precisely why we don't see devs around very often.

Edited by RampancyTW, 06 May 2016 - 09:46 AM.

[Rampancy]

mogs01gt, on 06 May 2016 - 09:45 AM, said:

Its still a flat surface with zero depth. Stop with this volume non-sense. Players are still aiming at a flat surface that represents a 3d object. Its not 3d object. If the mechs had volume, then armor would have depth and it doesnt. Its a set 0-X amount of armor on each flat surface.

If you are with PGI, you are already in the wrong....

Side and top profile are both extremely important to a mech's survivability characteristics. Only focusing on front profile is ridiculous, because a big part of the game is avoiding presenting a clear target to your opponents.

People tout the Stalker's survivability, but their legs pop plenty easy and they're extremely easy to disarm. They excel at hillpoking due to hitboxes and hardpoints, not front-facing profile.

[mogs01gt]

RampancyTW, on 06 May 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

Side and top profile are both extremely important to a mech's survivability characteristics. Only focusing on front profile is ridiculous, because a big part of the game is avoiding presenting a clear target to your opponents.

And? If the side or top profile had less pixels it would be harder to him... Make a point please... You're still aiming at a flat image on a monitor.

Edited by mogs01gt, 06 May 2016 - 09:53 AM.

[Rampancy]

mogs01gt, on 06 May 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

And? If the side or top profile had less pixels it would be harder to him... Make a point please... You're still aiming at a flat image on a monitor.

Total volume is the best way to balance out all of the possible profiles between mechs. Mechs will be different to fight with and against based on their (balanced) volumes.

I'm very comfortable playing in Awesomes despite their front profile, because its side profile makes it very good at tanking damage with a STD engine. I don't like Stalkers because of their slow speed and giant DISARM ME torsos.

Edited by RampancyTW, 06 May 2016 - 10:02 AM.

[mogs01gt]

RampancyTW, on 06 May 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

Total volume is the best way to balance out all of the possible profiles between mechs. Mechs will be different to fight with and against based on their (balanced) volumes.
I'm very comfortable playing in Awesomes despite their front profile, because its side profile makes it very good at tanking damage with a STD engine. I don't like Stalkers because of their slow speed and giant DISARM ME torsos.

stop....there is zero volume on a flat object. Textures does not mean an object on a flat monitor has volume.

How much volume does a pixel have on your monitor?

Edited by mogs01gt, 06 May 2016 - 10:06 AM.

[Rampancy]

mogs01gt, on 06 May 2016 - 10:06 AM, said:

stop....there is zero volume on a flat object. Textures does not mean an object on a flat monitor has volume.

How much volume does a pixel have on your monitor?

MWO is a 3D game. Therefore its in-game objects have in-game volume. Balanced in-game volume is the best way to balance all possible profiles of a mech.

I know you think you're being clever, but I can assure you, you're not.

Edited by RampancyTW, 06 May 2016 - 10:13 AM.

[oldradagast]

RampancyTW, on 06 May 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

MWO is a 3D game. Therefore its in-game objects have in-game volume. Balanced in-game volume is the best way to balance all possible profiles of a mech.

I know you think you're being clever, but I can assure you, you're not.

Point to consider: I don't think anybody is actually saying that the 2-D frontal profile is "all that matters," and I think most of us would agree that a good STARTING point would be to use the mech's total volume and try to normalize them not only among mechs of the same weight, but also in proper proportion to mechs of OTHER weight classes. A good example is the messed up IS 55-ton mechs that are all too big for their size. They are about the same size when compared to each other, but they are too large when compared to mechs of other tonnages.

That being said, for two mechs of the same volume, the flat, wide one is going to be far less viable in the game than the deep, skinny one - again, Awesome vs. Stalker. Something else - such as quirks, - will be needed to balance this out even after all the mechs are sized the same using math.

[Rampancy]

oldradagast, on 06 May 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:

Point to consider: I don't think anybody is actually saying that the 2-D frontal profile is "all that matters," and I think most of us would agree that a good STARTING point would be to use the mech's total volume and try to normalize them not only among mechs of the same weight, but also in proper proportion to mechs of OTHER weight classes. A good example is the messed up IS 55-ton mechs that are all too big for their size. They are about the same size when compared to each other, but they are too large when compared to mechs of other tonnages.

That being said, for two mechs of the same volume, the flat, wide one is going to be far less viable in the game than the deep, skinny one - again, Awesome vs. Stalker. Something else - such as quirks, - will be needed to balance this out even after all the mechs are sized the same using math.

Mechs are being normalized such that all mechs have a constant total volume to tonnage ratio, to prevent exactly that issue of oversized/undersized mechs for their weight class. Overall size will now be consistent.

As far as the Stalker vs. Awesome comparison, the hardpoint locations and hitboxes are far bigger contributing factors than profile. And a Stalker caught out in the open is way more screwed than an Awesome.

[oldradagast]

RampancyTW, on 06 May 2016 - 10:25 AM, said:

Mechs are being normalized such that all mechs have a constant total volume to tonnage ratio, to prevent exactly that issue of oversized/undersized mechs for their weight class. Overall size will now be consistent.

As far as the Stalker vs. Awesome comparison, the hardpoint locations and hitboxes are far bigger contributing factors than profile. And a Stalker caught out in the open is way more screwed than an Awesome.

Oh, I agree on those points. Please don't think I am against volume normalization - I am not. I also agree that the Stalker's high hardpoints make a HUGE different. If the Awesome's first torso energy weapon slots were high mounted, they would probably at least be "somewhat competitive" in their current form.

All I'm getting at is that volume normalization, while good, will probably not eliminate the need for quirks to buff up mechs that are, in a typical situation, presenting more area to receive hits than other mechs. I hope PGI understands that - normalizing all mech volumes and then getting rid of all defensive quirks is not the answer, although the volume normalization is the right first step.

Edited by oldradagast, 06 May 2016 - 10:36 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

Satan n stuff, on 06 May 2016 - 06:18 AM, said:

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.

It's actually NOT literally impossible to quantify coastline length. It's a linear distance measurement. You start at one end, and then just measure to the other. There are hundreds of possible ways to accomplish this.

However, there is NO mathematical system that will allow you to estimate the relative size of an object based on an infinite number of silhouettes of that object. Such a system does not exist. Even if it DID exist, the most such a system could give you would equate to is a value representing a simplified estimate of the total surface area of an object, excluding surface areas that do not contribute to the outer profile of the object. So effectively, you've found a very contrived way to find surface area, which is something that's already available to you in the model source.

And since math tells us there is direct correlation between the surface area of an object and its volume, and given that your "profile scan" excludes any surface area of the object that will not contribute directly to volume, not only will you end up with the same relative scale regardless of which of the 3 methods you used - the profile estimate, surface area, or volume - but the ratio you came up with in the profile scan will actually sit much closer to volume than it does surface area. Regardless, volume will end up being the reference that is both the most accurate and the one with the least possible deviation from standards caused by erroneous surfaces.

So like I said... over and over... it doesn't really matter what you use. If you apply a standard which is based in actual math and takes the entirety of the model into consideration to all mechs - no matter which standard you use, the relative sizes of all mechs will end up the same. This mech will always be larger than that mech, and that mech will always be smaller than this mech, and so on. The ABSOLUTE sizes of those mechs may vary depending on the method used and the starting reference point, but the relative sizes will be the same no matter what.

The only way you get out of the Blackjack getting bigger is if you eyeball every mech... you don't apply a standard and look at mechs subjectively. So basically balance by Paul.