38 replies to this topic

[Hit the Deck]

wanderer, on 11 June 2016 - 11:01 AM, said:

We've got a reference point now ourselves, thanks to the Butterbee.

That's a 65-tonner under the new scaling. Which means a 55-ton medium should be modestly smaller than that, and so forth.

The reference point ('Mech) is the one whose size doesn't change because it's taken as correct. Also, any 'Mech apart from the reference can have its size becomes bigger or smaller depending on its current density value, i.e. a 55 tonner can become bigger although the 65 tons Catapult is now smaller.

[SpiralFace]

I think a lot of that is going to depend on the mech's geometry and how it is constructed.

The Catapult is still large from both major sides.

From its front profile, its arms are still giant boxes and its body bulk is still on the fair side of heafty.

While its side profile has not only "deep" boxes on the missile launcher arms, but also a long, fuselage torso that means that from both the front and the side, it gives off a large profile.

Take that against a 50 ton trebuchet and you'll see that while the treb is a giant "shoot me here" slab from the front profile, its side profile is nearly non-existant because it is so thin.

While I'm of the mind that the should probably trim down the geo a bit, the reality probably is that the treb will only see a very minor scale adjustment in comparison to the catapult due mostly to the fact that volume wise, it still has a very low amount of "volume" in its chassis due to its super slim side and top profile, even if its front profile is very broad and tall.

Hopefully they will make some further adjustments to help the 50 tonners, but given that this new system is based mostly on "volume," Mechs like the Catapult and nova that have naturally big volumes due to their mech design will probably be the better winners from this system, while the more "humanoid" mechs that have naturally slim side profiles will probably only see minor adjustments if they need them at all.

[Bishop Steiner]

Hit the Deck, on 11 June 2016 - 05:30 PM, said:

The reference point ('Mech) is the one whose size doesn't change because it's taken as correct. Also, any 'Mech apart from the reference can have its size becomes bigger or smaller depending on its current density value, i.e. a 55 tonner can become bigger although the 65 tons Catapult is now smaller.

that would defeat the purpose of volumetric scaling.

[Hit the Deck]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 June 2016 - 06:30 PM, said:

that would defeat the purpose of volumetric scaling.

Nope, because like I said, only a computer knows the exact value of a 'Mech's volume.

For example, imagine a tall-ish 55 tonner when looked at from the front but its actually very thin from the side so it's density is bigger than the reference. To the horror of the players, they need to make it "bigger" (more voluminous) so its density can match the reference!

[Bishop Steiner]

Hit the Deck, on 11 June 2016 - 06:40 PM, said:

Nope, because like I said, only a computer knows the exact value of a 'Mech's volume.

For example, imagine a tall-ish 55 tonner when looked at from the front but its actually very thin from the side so it's density is bigger than the reference. To the horror of the players, they need to make it "bigger" (more voluminous) so its density can match the reference!

May have misread your intent. I thought you were saying a65 toner might become smaller than a55. Which wouldn't happen, though from one angle our another out might appear to be

[SpiralFace]

Just to clarify for all involved, as I think that there are some wires crossed in this discussion because of a simple case of semantics and proper English.

A 55 Tonner can be TALLER then a 65 tonner, but it will not be SMALLER then a mech of a LIGHTER tonnage because the overall mech VOLUME will dictate the total size of the mech.

Lighter mechs will always be "smaller" due to their smaller volume, but they could be "taller" if a mech has a large amount of volume extending in a single direction and slimmer in other directions.

Edited by SpiralFace, 11 June 2016 - 08:48 PM.

[Hit the Deck]

SpiralFace, on 11 June 2016 - 07:30 PM, said:

Just to clarify for all involved, as I think that there are some wires crossed in this discussion because of a simple case of semantics and proper English.

A 55 Tonner can be TALLER then a 65 tonner, but it will not be SMALLER then a mech of a LIGHTER tonnage because the overall mech VOLUME will dictate the total size of the mech.

Lighter mechs will always be "smaller" due to their smaller volume, but they could be "taller" if a mech has a large amount of volume extending in all directions.

Thanks for making it clearer!

[Bishop Steiner]

SpiralFace, on 11 June 2016 - 07:30 PM, said:

Just to clarify for all involved, as I think that there are some wires crossed in this discussion because of a simple case of semantics and proper English.

A 55 Tonner can be TALLER then a 65 tonner, but it will not be SMALLER then a mech of a LIGHTER tonnage because the overall mech VOLUME will dictate the total size of the mech.

Lighter mechs will always be "smaller" due to their smaller volume, but they could be "taller" if a mech has a large amount of volume extending in all directions.

That clarifies things nicely

[ScarecrowES]

I think once volumes are normalized, the functional differences in mech shape won't seem to matter quite so much. Sizing by feels has made most of the non-humanoid mechs much larger than they really should be compared to their humanoid counterparts.

After rescaling, humanoids are going to present a much larger frontal target than non-humanoid mechs, but that will be offset by having much smaller side profiles with the added bonus of arms shielding. Non-humanoids don't have as great a capability at shielding, but should present a smaller overall target. Humanoids should be able to roll damage across all 3 torsos better than non-humanoids, but non-humanoids should be able to fully protect one side in a sword-and-board better.

I expect that, now that size differentials are out of the equation, mechs can stand on their own merits.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

LT. HARDCASE, on 11 June 2016 - 06:04 AM, said:

The ADDER was the reference? Oh man the light bracket is getting screwed over.

Griffin was the reference for the 55 tonners I've been guessing. Shadow Hawk was listed as 1.something percent off, and the Griffin is just barely that much different in size.

Yeah it'll **** me a bit until i get used to it, but honestly small lights with microscopic hitboxes is the biggest remaining source of hit reg issues and frankly lights will be more in line with their TT sizes now so it's not gonna bother the TT purists like myself.

Hopefully PGI will give us much better acceleration, turning, jumping, etc quirks so we can use our mobility keep fighting the good fight instead of idiotic structure quirks.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 June 2016 - 07:57 AM, said:

doesn't mean anything is getting fat...since volume is a constant whether tall and skinny or short and fat.

And here is where I have a problem with why volume was chosen, a mechs that have a bunch of surface area in all the wrong places will only be hurt by this change (King Crabby Patty and Grasshopper are definitely a couple of losers on this).

SpiralFace, on 11 June 2016 - 07:30 PM, said:

A 55 Tonner can be TALLER then a 65 tonner, but it will not be SMALLER then a mech of a LIGHTER tonnage because the overall mech VOLUME will dictate the total size of the mech.

Actually, this is not necessarily true, because surface area can be different depending on the shape of the mech and still have the same volume, meaning it can actually be bigger (though not sure whether the given scenario would be possible).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 June 2016 - 08:11 AM.

[LordBraxton]

Making the zeus bigger?!?

55 tonners good size?!?!

PGI is the worst dev team ever. This game is a joke.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 June 2016 - 08:11 AM, said:

And here is where I have a problem with why volume was chosen, a mechs that have a bunch of surface area in all the wrong places will only be hurt by this change (King Crabby Patty and Grasshopper are definitely a couple of losers on this).

And how would one fix, that, fairly? Given them lower volume?

Some machines have poor geometry, period. Reality that should redefine their "roles" except we really have such limited use of the role concept.

Archer is screwed when it comes to geometry. And it should have been quirked in recognition of this (and it's lore role) to be a more effective LRM machine. Mind you it would still be DoA for Competitive Play, but at the end of the day, so are most mechs. That said, it could be "built" in such a way as to be an asset in some tiers of play despite it's geometry issues... if PGI was remotely smart about how to quirk it.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 June 2016 - 08:11 AM, said:

Actually, this is not necessarily true, because surface area can be different depending on the shape of the mech and still have the same volume, meaning it can actually be bigger (though not sure whether the given scenario would be possible).

Also, it actually can't be "bigger" because volume is a constant. Add to one dimension, you have to remove from another. Thus it it's taller, it will be skinnier or have less depth. But it can't actually, on the total, be bigger.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 June 2016 - 08:24 AM, said:

And how would one fix, that, fairly? Given them lower volume?

Do judgements based on surface area, instead of volume, or use find some adequate range for both to be in to consider suitable.

Bishop Steiner, on 13 June 2016 - 08:24 AM, said:

Some machines have poor geometry, period. Reality that should redefine their "roles" except we really have such limited use of the role concept.

Poor geometry is different from simply having more surface that is shootable.

Bishop Steiner, on 13 June 2016 - 08:24 AM, said:

Also, it actually can't be "bigger" because volume is a constant. Add to one dimension, you have to remove from another. Thus it it's taller, it will be skinnier or have less depth. But it can't actually, on the total, be bigger.

Volume may be constant, but surface area may in fact be, giving the appearance of being larger because it actually has a larger surface.

9x3x1 rectangular prism vs a 3x3x3 cube, both have a 27 unit volume, but the rectangular prism has a surface area of 78 units versus the cubes 54 unit surface area. This matters more in a game where having more surface area means you are more likely to be shot.

[Hit the Deck]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 June 2016 - 08:31 AM, said:

Volume may be constant, but surface area may in fact be, giving the appearance of being larger because it actually has a larger surface.

Yeah, I forgot to mention that one and it should make things clearer.

EDIT: since 'Mechs aren't usually shaped like a sphere except select few, the closest they could get for an advantageous silhouette (smallest surface area) is a box cube with as little as gap as possible. But there are still other factors besides surface area which account for its shootability.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 13 June 2016 - 08:47 AM.

[GrimRiver]

In my 3+ years of playing I have not once touched the catpult due to it's very very gross in oversizedness but now I very well might have a reason to play them.

It's the same with the dragon, it's nose is soo huge it gets hit even from the rear and I really wanted to enjoy that mech but couldn't due to ALL the damage going straight to CT.

Vindy's...well I don't remember what was said about them, I just hope they get smaller and better.

Victors? Who cares about them anymore since JJ will very well never see the boost they once had ever again, better off removing that mech from game.

[Felio]

SpiralFace, on 11 June 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

To be fair, Even within the "Player run" scaling tracking, most lights are well bellow the "average curb" that mechs of that size should anyways. (And this was tracked as an average between the Locust and the Atlas.)


So even if PGI went with the "player suggested" list over their own system, Lights would still stand to be "screwed over" anyways, since they are already well below the average for even the list that every seems to love.

Russ got all cross about that chart, saying it wasn't accurate. Then he clarified that by inaccurate he meant not as useful for balance as volume, because volume is more important for things like LRMs.

I maintain that the chart is a pretty good approximation, because it gives us profiles of length, width and height, which is what you multiply to get volume. Complex geometry throws it off a bit, but not enough to get bent out of shape over. And profiles are very important for most shots, anyway.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Why hypothesis when you can just ask google:

Here's the twitter convo where Russ says he likes where the hunchback and enforcer sit.

https://twitter.com/...139921383534592

[LordKnightFandragon]

SpiralFace, on 11 June 2016 - 06:27 PM, said:

I think a lot of that is going to depend on the mech's geometry and how it is constructed.

The Catapult is still large from both major sides.

From its front profile, its arms are still giant boxes and its body bulk is still on the fair side of heafty.

While its side profile has not only "deep" boxes on the missile launcher arms, but also a long, fuselage torso that means that from both the front and the side, it gives off a large profile.

Take that against a 50 ton trebuchet and you'll see that while the treb is a giant "shoot me here" slab from the front profile, its side profile is nearly non-existant because it is so thin.

While I'm of the mind that the should probably trim down the geo a bit, the reality probably is that the treb will only see a very minor scale adjustment in comparison to the catapult due mostly to the fact that volume wise, it still has a very low amount of "volume" in its chassis due to its super slim side and top profile, even if its front profile is very broad and tall.

Hopefully they will make some further adjustments to help the 50 tonners, but given that this new system is based mostly on "volume," Mechs like the Catapult and nova that have naturally big volumes due to their mech design will probably be the better winners from this system, while the more "humanoid" mechs that have naturally slim side profiles will probably only see minor adjustments if they need them at all.

No more Mad Dog treatment of mechs. The Mad Dog looks utterly absurd, like Tom after he rounds a corner at full speed, into a frying pan held by Jerry.......

The Catapult doesnt need its face bashed in or w/e other crap, just to make them more "meta friendly".