177 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

Assuming I can find the time, I'll be making some size comparisons VS current (already backed up 2k textures) and resized models.

As for excited? I'm almost expecting them to murder my Nova, as without quirks it brings almost nothing to the table.
Time will tell, but quirks are powerful things.

Triordinant, on 04 June 2016 - 01:34 AM, said:

I'm counting the days until BATTLETECH.

Has there been a CB announcement yet?

[Bishop Steiner]

oldradagast, on 04 June 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

- Some preliminary evidence points to questionable thought or math going into this effort. For example, Catapult and Nova are getting smaller - yeah! But Blackjack (a nearly worthless mech outside of its super-quirks) and Grasshopper (way too tall and dependent totally upon energy-weapon meta to be viable) are getting larger. So, while standards are good, when somebody tells me a 70-ton mech that stands about as tall as 90 to 100 tons mechs needs to be larger/fatter, I start losing confidence in the metrics being used.

While I don't disagree in principle, one of the worst things they can do, is use scale or hitboxes to "balance". Scale needs to be truly uniform (with only real minor variation in volume) and all mechs should have the "best" most survivable hitboxes their geometry allows.

The only place I do feel volume should differ is between IS and Clan. Because one of the hallmarks of progress is miniaturization, I do feel that the Clans as a whole should probably be about 5% smaller on avg than IS equivalents. I doubt it would happen, but just putting that out there. Omnis are supposed ot be more compact and efficiently designed than traditional Mechs.

As for the requirkening, unless PGI shows a heck of a lot more awareness and understanding of Lore and their own game than they have in past iterations, I can't say I'm too excited.

[Y E O N N E]

oldradagast, on 04 June 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

Honestly, I'm not getting my hopes up for a few reasons:

- Some preliminary evidence points to questionable thought or math going into this effort. For example, Catapult and Nova are getting smaller - yeah! But Blackjack (a nearly worthless mech outside of its super-quirks) and Grasshopper (way too tall and dependent totally upon energy-weapon meta to be viable) are getting larger. So, while standards are good, when somebody tells me a 70-ton mech that stands about as tall as 90 to 100 tons mechs needs to be larger/fatter, I start losing confidence in the metrics being used.

Some people think using an arbitrary, universal standard to measure and adjust all 'Mechs against is fair. It is not. It is impartial, but impartial is not the same thing as fair. Fair has an objective in mind, impartial does not. Since the game is not a mere thought experiment, it has objectives to satisfy and, therefore, impartiality is unfair.

That said...the Blackjack was not useless before quirks. It was out-gunned during the pop-tart meta but when that went out of vogue it was still one of the best mediums at laser vomit...even with the heat and lack of range. It just wasn't comp. But...back then...Clans were dominating every weight class that wasn't Lights.

[STEF_]

Mcgral18, on 04 June 2016 - 09:36 AM, said:

Assuming I can find the time, I'll be making some size comparisons VS current (already backed up 2k textures) and resized models.

As for excited? I'm almost expecting them to murder my Nova, as without quirks it brings almost nothing to the table.
Time will tell, but quirks are powerful things.



Has there been a CB announcement yet?

Great coincidence
I've asked the same this morning to devs.
Let's wait for the answer...

[Bishop Steiner]

Yeonne Greene, on 04 June 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

Some people think using an arbitrary, universal standard to measure and adjust all 'Mechs against is fair. It is not. It is impartial, but impartial is not the same thing as fair. Fair has an objective in mind, impartial does not. Since the game is not a mere thought experiment, it has objectives to satisfy and, therefore, impartiality is unfair.

That said...the Blackjack was not useless before quirks. It was out-gunned during the pop-tart meta but when that went out of vogue it was still one of the best mediums at laser vomit...even with the heat and lack of range. It just wasn't comp. But...back then...Clans were dominating every weight class that wasn't Lights.

I've yet to see how it's "not" fair.

All things being equal, military vehicles of the same role and mass tend to be the same general size and even shape. Optimized. Choosing to over and undersize units "for balance", especially for a company with as many issues with balance as PGI has had, is just opening pandora's box. Especially since we've seen a mechs' effectiveness shift with the Meta.

I've yet to see one objective post to recommend a realistic alternative to volumetric scaling.

The less variables to juggle in balance the better. Once one has a realistic and hard, baseline for things like scale and hitboxes out of the way, balance becomes easier. It's easier to determine based on stock hardpoint which units need inflation or not. And it's far easier to determine which units legitimately need quirks to compensate at this point because yet one more variable is gone.

When we can get to the point that the only real variables are Hardpoint Inflation (and location of inflated hardpoints) and Quirks, we'll be in a far better place then scaling mechs on a subjective scale, that shifts which each meta. I get some people spent a lot of time and effort working up different scale attempts, etc, and those went a long way toward finally breaking PGI down on the need to rescale at all. But we need to stop the narrative that silhouette, or pixel counts, etc, are actualyl "better" because they are not.

[cazidin]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 June 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:

I've yet to see one objective post to recommend a realistic alternative to volumetric scaling.

Why, the same genius mathematical formula they use to correctly determine which mechs need which quirks and in the exact amount, of course! The Magic Dartboard is never wrong.

[Y E O N N E]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 June 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:

I've yet to see how it's "not" fair.

All things being equal, military vehicles of the same role and mass tend to be the same general size and even shape. Optimized. Choosing to over and undersize units "for balance", especially for a company with as many issues with balance as PGI has had, is just opening pandora's box. Especially since we've seen a mechs' effectiveness shift with the Meta.

They don't. This has been gone over ad infinitum. A T90 is not appreciably different in shape or size to an Abrams (you can go look up the dimensions yourself) but weighs a whopping 15-17 tons less. There are whole host of reasons why this could be. Denser materials used could be one. More densely packed volume could be another. Doesn't matter. Bottom line: that particular analogy you are trying to use disintegrates under scrutiny, so stop using it.

The effectiveness of a 'Mech shifting is more to do with the quirks and equipment changing. Poptarting went away because JJs got nerfed, PPCs got nerfed, and Clan vomit gave you the same damage on a component (~35, the rest often spread) at the same ranges with far greater agility. The change in solution to the metagame had nothing to do with hit-boxes. The 'Mechs that had terrible hit-boxes and/or hard-points continued to be ignored unless they received some massive quirks that pushed them way over (i.e. Quickdraw, Blackjack, Black Knight, Atlas).

Quote

I've yet to see one objective post to recommend a realistic alternative to volumetric scaling.

The re-scale itself wasn't a realistic request, which is exactly why PGI is copping out using volume. They know what the correct way to do it is, but they are not willing to spend the time and resources to do it because the returns are small.

Quote

The less variables to juggle in balance the better. Once one has a realistic and hard, baseline for things like scale and hitboxes out of the way, balance becomes easier. It's easier to determine based on stock hardpoint which units need inflation or not. And it's far easier to determine which units legitimately need quirks to compensate at this point because yet one more variable is gone.

Moving to a universal standard doesn't remove the variable. The only way it would is if all 'Mechs were the same shape, which they obviously aren't. You yourself said you don't want hit-boxes to be a balance factor. I'm here to inform you that they are required to be. There's no escaping it, it's the nature of the game.

Quote

When we can get to the point that the only real variables are Hardpoint Inflation (and location of inflated hardpoints) and Quirks, we'll be in a far better place then scaling mechs on a subjective scale, that shifts which each meta. I get some people spent a lot of time and effort working up different scale attempts, etc, and those went a long way toward finally breaking PGI down on the need to rescale at all. But we need to stop the narrative that silhouette, or pixel counts, etc, are actualyl "better" because they are not.

What makes you think the scale will shift with each meta? It won't. There is an absolute superior shape and ratio of sizing among the component parts. What's good at redirecting PPFLD will be even better against lasers. Some 'Mechs are blessed with these shapes, some are not. The objective of the re-scale always should have been to take those 'Mechs with the inferior geometry, and adjust that geometry in specific areas as far as you can without destroying the identity of the 'Mech and then adding in durability or agility quirks to push them to the same level of survivability as those 'Mechs graced with optimal geometry. Sometimes that results in a universal shrink/enlargement. Sometimes it doesn't. Most of the time, it will likely involve a combination of universal size alteration and a specific tailoring.

And no, we don't need to stop that narrative, because it remains the correct one.

YOU. DO. NOT. SHOOT. AT. VOLUME. FULL STOP. YOU SHOOT AT FLAT OBJECTS.

If you're going to try to pull real-world military vehicles into this (which I remind that you were already doing incorrectly), even they don't optimize for an infinite number of angles. They very deliberately pick front/back, side, and top, and prioritize them according to expected usage. And to boot, what are the oblique angles but amalgamations of the cardinal ones anyway? If your cardinal angles each have a good silhouette, your oblique ones will, too.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yeonne Greene, on 04 June 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

YOU. DO. NOT. SHOOT. AT. VOLUME. FULL STOP. YOU SHOOT AT FLAT OBJECTS.

If you're going to try to pull real-world military vehicles into this (which I remind that you were already doing incorrectly), even they don't optimize for an infinite number of angles. They very deliberately pick front/back, side, and top, and prioritize them according to expected usage. And to boot, what are the oblique angles but amalgamations of the cardinal ones anyway? If your cardinal angles each have a good silhouette, your oblique ones will, too.

and yet for facings and angles, military fighting vehicles always are designed as low volume and compact as possible, to minimize target.

Now, again, if you can suggest a better manner than volumetric that PGI can REALISTICALLY be expected to implement, please do. Especially given the constraints of the physical art geometry. Because to do as you say we will have 50 tonners the size of 25 tonners in some cases, and vice versa. And zero actual consistency. Or PGI will have to redesign every mech according to actual military design practices for angles and target profile.... which oh yeah, means not using mechs in the first damn place.

Again, given PGIs resources, please, how exactly will this get done?

OK then.

Jumping Buddah on a Magic Carpet. I do love the absolute blue sky idealistic bullcrap you guys pull out and expect to be implemented.

Give a realistically viable alternative, or just stop vilifying the realistically viable option chosen. QQing for something PGI could never implement (and doesn't necessarily work better given the nature of the mechs in question) is just one of the reasons "PGI doesn't listen to us" in the first place.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 04 June 2016 - 11:03 AM.

[Coolant]

not counting the days but looking forward to it, well, the resize. If a bunch of mechs I use get nerfed as far as quirks I probably won't be playing much. I'm burned out and on the fence about logging in almost everyday. I huge nerf would push me to playing something else for awhile.

[Y E O N N E]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 June 2016 - 10:46 AM, said:

and yet for facings and angles, military fighting vehicles always are designed as low volume and compact as possible, to minimize target.

How does that support your position in any way? It supports mine, not yours. They optimize the silhouette, which is exactly what PGI is not doing.

Quote

Now, again, if you can suggest a better manner than volumetric that PGI can REALISTICALLY be expected to implement, please do. Especially given the constraints of the physical art geometry. Because to do as you say we will have 50 tonners the size of 25 tonners in some cases, and vice versa. And zero actual consistency. Or PGI will have to redesign every mech according to actual military design practices for angles and target profile.... which oh yeah, means not using mechs int he first damn place.

Quote

Again, given PGIs resources, please, how exactly will this get done?

> You
> Still implying rescale should have been done in the first place
> Still thinking a rescale was a realistic request in the first place
> Also accepting that we're going to use quirks to buff things to where they need to be anyway

Hell, why are we re-scaling at all? Just cut the bull and go straight to quirks!

This is the same folly the cXL == isXL support base is guilty of. If you are willing to accept quirks as fixes, then the other changes are not necessary and you are demanding them purely to satisfy your own desires and not the needs of the game on a mechanical level.

Quote

OK then.

Jumping Buddah on a Magic Carpet. I do love the absolute blue sky idealistic bullcrap you guys pull out and expect to be implemented.

Idealistic? Like...asking for a rescale in the first place? Like asking for massive quirks on the worst LRMs for the Archer when it can just as easily bring the better LRMs and some lasers and be about as useful as any LRM 'Mech can be?

Pot, meet kettle.

Coolant, on 04 June 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

not counting the days but looking forward to it, well, the resize. If a bunch of mechs I use get nerfed as far as quirks I probably won't be playing much. I'm burned out and on the fence about logging in almost everyday. I huge nerf would push me to playing something else for awhile.

Overwatch is great. I hear the new Doom is also awesome, it's on my list.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 04 June 2016 - 11:06 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

Please don't make me break out the math again. I ended the debate about volume forever ago, and I'd rather it not get rehashed. I destroyed the "we shoot at flat objects" notion in myriad ways, and any further argument here is willful ignorance. Let's just not go there, shan't we?

Volume. It's still by far the best baseline to work from. It's the most objective and comprehensive way to do this rescale process. Fair? It's absolutely fair... unbiased, is how I'd put it. Objective standards don't care about perception or goals. It just produces a standard-based result. Will it cause balance? No it will not. But it will take size out of the equation. We no longer have to consider that a Blackjack is undersized for the same volume where the Vindicator is oversized. From then on, if they perform differently, it's not due to size... it's due to shape, hardpoints, whatever. We can balance from that. And that balance will come from a place that starts more fair than ever before.

The alternative, as always, is balance by dartboard. And yeah, how has that worked out for us so far?

[BumbleBee]

Remember how people used to vilify PGI over the Catapults scale a few years ago?

People were pushing for volumetric scaling based on chassis weight.

PGI were saying that the missile racks were mostly empty space and therefore of course it is going to be a little larger than pure volume based on weight would dictate.

PGI finally gave in and now they are doing it wrong?

I find myself pitying PGI more and more as time goes by. There are many members of this community who will do anything to try and discredit them and will take the opposite stance of whatever PGI tries to do, no matter what it is.

In truth, they have made leaps and bounds over the last couple of years. I don't agree with all of their decisions, but that doesn't mean that they haven't done a damn good job for the most part.

[Johnny Z]

Rampage, on 04 June 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:

During the podcast that I mentioned above NGNG also reported that there would be no more "Scheduled" Town Halls. They did not give a reason for their discontinuation. I suspect it was the negative feedback that they were getting on this forum. It is sad to see another conduit for information exchange between the game developer and the community go away.

I guess with the level of toxicity and negativity (some rightfully earned) towards PGI that is prevalent in this community it is understandable why they would want to insulate themselves from some of it.

Still, I am hopeful that the re-scale will be a step in the right direction. Will some people be unhappy and whine? Absolutely, there will be lamenting, wailing and gnashing of teeth when someone's favorite toy is no longer the best toy on the playground but PGI needs to stand their ground. There are lots of toys and even the most spoiled brat will eventually give up and pick up a different one if you make it clear that you are not going to give in to the tantrum.

I looked forward to the podcasts. But the Dev logs are great to. The Q & A posts were ok even.

Edited by Johnny Z, 04 June 2016 - 03:36 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 04 June 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

Please don't make me break out the math again. I ended the debate about volume forever ago, and I'd rather it not get rehashed. I destroyed the "we shoot at flat objects" notion in myriad ways, and any further argument here is willful ignorance. Let's just not go there, shan't we?

Please, you didn't end diddly squat. You misappropriated numbers to try to back-up fundamentally flawed logic, logic born of chronic ignorance on your part of all things technical. Every time you begin mashing out a thesis on MWO, you fill it with half-understandings that you then attempt to pawn off as indisputable fact by essentially repeating the phrase "IT'S SCIENCE!" in the vain hope that we'll start believing the lie.

The only reason that thread ended was because it got pushed down past page 2 since I was busy, and I don't reply to things that get pushed past page 2.

[Aetes Nakatomi]

Super drunk Aetes who just got home from the pub after singing song on Karaoke and downing shots that logged onto the forum to see what was going down (hoping for an update on the patch) thinks Volumetric resize is the only way to keep both semi lore mech shapes and have semblance of scale when it come to comparable weight classes.

Humanoid shapes are always going to be tall and thin while the other shapes are going to be squat and fat or squat and long.

[ScarecrowES]

Yeonne Greene, on 04 June 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

Please, you didn't end diddly squat. You misappropriated numbers to try to back-up fundamentally flawed logic, logic born of chronic ignorance on your part of all things technical. Every time you begin mashing out a thesis on MWO, you fill it with half-understandings that you then attempt to pawn off as indisputable fact by essentially repeating the phrase "IT'S SCIENCE!" in the vain hope that we'll start believing the lie.

The only reason that thread ended was because it got pushed down past page 2 since I was busy, and I don't reply to things that get pushed past page 2.

Awww dear... thankfully science doesn't care what you believe to be true. You can argue til you're blue in the face, but you can't discredit the math involved.

You want to shoot at flat objects? I showed beyond any argument... conclusively and without a possible hint of controversy... that representing a 3d object as a series of profiles taken from various angles presents the exact same ratios as doing the same purely by volume.

What you're talking about, essentially, is photogrammetry. Building a representation of a 3D object from 2D views of that object. You're taking the long way around just to come right back to volume.

So cry about how PGI is doing things, but understand volume accomplishes exactly what you want. And it does it wonderfully more easily than trying to come up with some silly and convoluted way of achieving the same result.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yeonne Greene, on 04 June 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

Please, you didn't end diddly squat. You misappropriated numbers to try to back-up fundamentally flawed logic, logic born of chronic ignorance on your part of all things technical. Every time you begin mashing out a thesis on MWO, you fill it with half-understandings that you then attempt to pawn off as indisputable fact by essentially repeating the phrase "IT'S SCIENCE!" in the vain hope that we'll start believing the lie.

The only reason that thread ended was because it got pushed down past page 2 since I was busy, and I don't reply to things that get pushed past page 2.

this is page 3........

[ice trey]

Triordinant, on 04 June 2016 - 01:34 AM, said:

I'm counting the days until BATTLETECH.

I don't want competition, I want immersion.
I don't want a match maker, I want a campaign game.
I don't want DLC, I want expansion packs.

Not to say that MWO did everything wrong. The customization system was pretty well as perfect as I could have ever asked, and the ability to paint mechs is the best the franchise has ever seen.
But between PGI dragging their feet on everything but feeding the community the newest balance-killing mechs and the community effectively neutering every match mode besides "Deathmatch" to the point that that you expect that's all you have to do in the game and succeed, PGI would need to lay a real golden egg very soon to get me to shill out yen to play.

Edited by ice trey, 04 June 2016 - 05:19 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

Yeonne Greene, on 04 June 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

Some people think using an arbitrary, universal standard to measure and adjust all 'Mechs against is fair. It is not. It is impartial, but impartial is not the same thing as fair. Fair has an objective in mind, impartial does not. Since the game is not a mere thought experiment, it has objectives to satisfy and, therefore, impartiality is unfair.

That said...the Blackjack was not useless before quirks. It was out-gunned during the pop-tart meta but when that went out of vogue it was still one of the best mediums at laser vomit...even with the heat and lack of range. It just wasn't comp. But...back then...Clans were dominating every weight class that wasn't Lights.

If by "fair" you mean that every Mech is equally viable then I agree. But I do not believe every Mech should be viable. I do believe every Mech should have a role to play but unfortunately the only role any Mech has in MWO at present is to kill fast. Mechs that do that are in vogue. Ones that are not effecient at doing that due to number of hardpoints or hardpoint location will sit and collect dust. Maybe someday we will get modes that give those Mechs a purpose. I believe it is a mistake to make up sizing and quirks to overcome bad geometry. The Mechs are modeled after BT descriptions and drawings and should stay true to that. Some where good and some were bad. Some fit some pilots and some do not.

If we are not going to follow BattleTech then we might as well just have PGI design one generic Mech with fantastic hardpoint numbers and locations and then everybody has to use that one Mech. That is the only way the game is ever going to be "fair".

If we want to keep the BattleTech/Mechwarrior flavor then "impartial" sizing is probably the best way to approach it. Will it result in balance? No. But hopefully it will eliminate some of the lobbying and favorable treatment of some Mechs over others to make them better than they have any right to be based on TROs.

I will remain cautiously optimistic about the re-scale until proven wrong.

[Jungle Rhino]

It's PGI they will eff it up - but good on them for trying nonetheless

btw I love my big fatty Awesome But then my primary concern playing this game is looking cool and shooting pew pew as opposed to actually being competitive... so I appreciate the POV