423 replies to this topic

[STEF_]

Znail, on 18 June 2016 - 12:08 AM, said:

Just because they used volume as a tool to messure the size of the models doesn't mean they scaled them directly according to that volume. In fact, it's obvious that they didn't as else so would the assault mechs not be as much larger then the light mechs.

What people really needs to do is look at the picture where all the mechs are lined up next to each other, that puts things in a totally diffrent perspective. That some got a lot larger was because they were a lot smaller then they should be before, now they fit in with other mechs of the same size and the diffrent tonnages scales up in a fairly consistent manner.

...

....
..all I can say is...

STFU

[Yosharian]

I can't fathom why you would make the majority of Inner Sphere lights so much easier to hit

from a balance perspective

whatever

[MechWarrior849305]

I would like to compare these to ACH, anyway. But... there is no rescale for the last

[Ade the Rare]

Jenner had a growth spurt huh!

I see dead Oxides...

[Mister Bob Dobalina]

Comparing the height of (my favourite) WLF from original to new scale I reckon it's about 15-20% on height. Out of my head (please correct me if I am wrong), a simplified geometric model like a cube makes up to around 70% more volume and about 45% more surface from a 20% height gain. Especially the latter is highly relevant for the the exposure of the hitboxes. And since they did not do anything to the ACH (which is also the geman expression for "sigh") I fear those (still) tiny little buggers may now just mow my legs down by aiming straight and going to kill me in no time flat. There has been no patch ever I have been looking for with less enthusiasm ...

[Trashhead]

It's so funny to see people complain about "Lights to big now", when you think about it... .

1. We, the community, asked for a global rescale.
That was US.
PGI just did it.
Now it's wrong?

2. PGI did use (and I quote) "Cubic Measurement" to determine the size of the mechs.
This basically means: this amount of size equals this amount of tonnage, and vice verse.
(Which, as far as i can remember, was even suggested by the community.)
So they had - at one point in the process - to fix this to a certain value.
And then.... guess what.. aply it to ALL the mechs equally!

Did you really thought they would only use this to DOWN-size all the mehs you perceived as "to big", and leave out the mechs that are to small?
Just because you did not see those mechs where to small, didn't meant they weren't.

3. Check your facts before you rant.
I just logged into the game and check some mechs.
As for the "worst offenders", I own the Panther, the Spider, Jenner and Jenner IIC.
Also own the Arctic Cheetah (which's scale did NOT change).
In comparison:
Arctic Cheetah vs. Spider: Spider is WAY to small NOW, so the fix is justified.
Arctic Cheetah vs, Firestrarter (which is 5 tons heavier): Firestarter is actualy the same size now (now = pre-Patch).
Jenner / II C: both are definitely smaller then the Adder, despite same tonnage -> fix is justified.
Arctic Cheetah vs. Panther: Panther appears to be a bit smaller then the ACH (despite the Panther being 5 tons heavier).

So, all in all, PGI did a good job with the rescale.
Just because you don't like it, does not mean they did a bad job.

If you wan't PGI to listen to your arguments and "be rational", how about you do the same... at least once in a while.

That being said:
I'm a bit sad about the Panther myself.
I liked to play it close to stock (my 10K is armed with only an ERPPC and an SRM6), so no Meta-Build whatsoever, and at "only" 105 kp/h I feel it will be ven harder to play, now.

All things considered I wish PGI could give the mechs quirks that encourage builds that are close to the stock-layouts (as long as said stock-layout is not itself close to Meta).
That way, the Panther - while now a bigger target - could still be worthwhile playing when you choose to play it with the original layout in mind (in this case: specific PPC quirks, like cooldown and Heat-gen, but not general Energy-quirks).

[L3mming2]

Fox With A Shotgun, on 17 June 2016 - 05:05 PM, said:

I dearly hope the Locust will lose its structure quirks if it's shrinking by that much. It's already bad enough taking out a superquirked 1V with its ridiculous structure and accel/decel quirks, and now you're making it an even tinier target?

it also takes forever to damage u so thats kinda balanced..

[L3mming2]

the lolcusts they still wont be top tier but this is nice ... very nice

[C E Dwyer]

CycKath, on 17 June 2016 - 03:52 PM, said:

Well, that's an eye opener.



Anybody want to buy a light 'Mech say Stinger and Wasp Mech Pack now assuming this scale for 20 tonners?

Sadly the running theme through this rescale is to for the most part penalise humanoids and to buff chicken walkers sizes, so the wasp and the stinger I'm sure will be also massive, only thing that will compensate for this will be for JJ's to get jumpy again and for massive mobility quirks.

I think a lot of almost exculsively light pilots will be looking for another game soon if this goes how I think it will

[Myke Pantera]

Seems like the 35t IS Lights are the big loosers of this patch... Pitty this was my favourite tonnage... Time to focus on Medium/Heavy mechs from now on :\

Edited by Myke Pantera, 18 June 2016 - 03:00 AM.

[ebea51]

AWESOME!

Size debuffs across the board - as there should be.

Little annoying turds are stupid enough as tiny as they are, fastest in the game, with alphas as high as mechs 2-classes heavier.

Light mechs have been ******** since full-collisions were removed in closed beta... about damn time they've received the nerf they've soooooo badly needed.

[Mister Bob Dobalina]

ebea51, on 18 June 2016 - 03:24 AM, said:

AWESOME!

Size debuffs across the board - as there should be.

Little annoying turds are stupid enough as tiny as they are, fastest in the game, with alphas as high as mechs 2-classes heavier.

Light mechs have been ******** since full-collisions were removed in closed beta... about damn time they've received the nerf they've soooooo badly needed.

.... conveniently not mentioning the fact that a light mech is usually NOT carring around the amount armor of yours truly mentioned mechs 2-classes heavier ...

[Alistair Winter]

Now that the Locust has a much smaller volume, I wouldn't mind if they made the legs a bit thinner and longer. I know people want this thing to be tiny, but I kind of want it to look a little bit more like the original.

[m2wester]

Cathy, on 18 June 2016 - 02:49 AM, said:

Sadly the running theme through this rescale is to for the most part penalise humanoids and to buff chicken walkers sizes

...which anyone with a working understanding of geometry could have known as soon as they announced they'd rescale based on volume. The reason is the more spherical body, not the legs, though.

The 35 tonners were all clearly way too small. The difference between the Jenner and the Cicada right now is ridiculous, considering they are almost the same weight. @Those who claim the lights are the same size as the Mediums, when I compare Panther, Enforcer, Griffin who have a very similar body structure, it looks pretty correct to me. Same with Jenner/Raven/Crab. The Catapult looks a bit on the small side at first glance, but then, its body is rounder and there are the huge missile throwers. Plus, with compact bodys, the weight increase is less visible than in thin, humanoid bodys.

Obviously this is a huge debuff to those 35 tonners. They probably should have given them a bit more in terms of quirks. We'll see what happens in July.

[ExoForce]

Yosharian, on 18 June 2016 - 12:44 AM, said:

I can't fathom why you would make the majority of Inner Sphere lights so much easier to hit

from a balance perspective

whatever

To reduce complaining on HSR, instead of fixing it?

[Nightshade24]

SLICKNIFTY, on 17 June 2016 - 03:49 PM, said:

Wait - lights got bigger? Why would you do that? So NOBODY EVER plays them?

Why would they do that?

Because of the thousands of people crying we want to standardize the scale of mechs and hated how much mechs are out of proportion.

Where here you have it. You got 35 ton mechs being so drastically small to other mechs like the cicada and other 40-45 tonners that it was a joke. Now they scaled up the sizes sos there is no longer a huge difference between a 35 tonner and a 40 tonner.

Light mechs were always scaled oddly and incorrectly. This was going to happen when rescaling occured.

[Frost Lord]

Trashhead, on 18 June 2016 - 01:54 AM, said:

It's so funny to see people complain about "Lights to big now", when you think about it... .

1. We, the community, asked for a global rescale.
That was US.
PGI just did it.
Now it's wrong?

2. PGI did use (and I quote) "Cubic Measurement" to determine the size of the mechs.
This basically means: this amount of size equals this amount of tonnage, and vice verse.
(Which, as far as i can remember, was even suggested by the community.)
So they had - at one point in the process - to fix this to a certain value.
And then.... guess what.. aply it to ALL the mechs equally!

Did you really thought they would only use this to DOWN-size all the mehs you perceived as "to big", and leave out the mechs that are to small?
Just because you did not see those mechs where to small, didn't meant they weren't.

3. Check your facts before you rant.
I just logged into the game and check some mechs.
As for the "worst offenders", I own the Panther, the Spider, Jenner and Jenner IIC.
Also own the Arctic Cheetah (which's scale did NOT change).
In comparison:
Arctic Cheetah vs. Spider: Spider is WAY to small NOW, so the fix is justified.
Arctic Cheetah vs, Firestrarter (which is 5 tons heavier): Firestarter is actualy the same size now (now = pre-Patch).
Jenner / II C: both are definitely smaller then the Adder, despite same tonnage -> fix is justified.
Arctic Cheetah vs. Panther: Panther appears to be a bit smaller then the ACH (despite the Panther being 5 tons heavier).

So, all in all, PGI did a good job with the rescale.
Just because you don't like it, does not mean they did a bad job.

If you wan't PGI to listen to your arguments and "be rational", how about you do the same... at least once in a while.

That being said:
I'm a bit sad about the Panther myself.
I liked to play it close to stock (my 10K is armed with only an ERPPC and an SRM6), so no Meta-Build whatsoever, and at "only" 105 kp/h I feel it will be ven harder to play, now.

All things considered I wish PGI could give the mechs quirks that encourage builds that are close to the stock-layouts (as long as said stock-layout is not itself close to Meta).
That way, the Panther - while now a bigger target - could still be worthwhile playing when you choose to play it with the original layout in mind (in this case: specific PPC quirks, like cooldown and Heat-gen, but not general Energy-quirks).

Its not really a clan Vs IS thing its lights Vs the other mediums heavy's and assaults.

it probably is mathematically correct but but if this game has proven anything its that following a formula doesn't fix everything. for me the IS lights seem like they will get more negatives from the scale changes assaults on the other hand will likely find little difference Zeus excluded but that was always ridicules.

I just hope they look at taking another shot at the lights in general before giving them crazy armor buffs, to the point they actually are mediums.

[Kaschkin]

Those re-scales are terrible...
I liked playing with my panthers... now they are as big as a medium...
Same for the wolfhound...

Most IS light now will be useless... what's the point of using them if they are this big?

On the other side the locust is now tiny. Guess we found the new mech of choice of IS light pilots.

[Lo Zal]

I really really really really really dislike these changes.
Everytime something actually works (and with "works" I don't mean "OP") PGI nerfs it.

Kaveli, on 17 June 2016 - 09:28 PM, said:

To those not grasping why the locust got smaller let's do some math.
The locust is a 20 ton mech.
The Firestarter is a 35 ton mech.
That's 15 tons. That's not much right?
Actually it's a lot. The locust is by tonnage only 57% the weight of the firestarter.
But the firestarter is so big now!!!! Is it?????
Put it next to a cicada, a 40 ton mech.
Mathematically the firestarter should be 87.5% of the scale of the cicada. Not height, total volume. That means if you dropped them in water the space they take up should be proportionall to these metrics.
Balance is something they can easily tweak but this wasn't easy, makes way more sense then eye balling it. I am all for this change and anyone complaining doesn't realize if you make all your favorite mech smaller the game doesn't get better...

Seems far less than 43% less.

[Rogue Jedi]

Mcgral18, on 17 June 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

Well, I guess we know where PGI stands:

"Lights OP #PGIPLZ NERF"

as I light pilot this is about what I expected, except I am a bit surprised the commando has not been up-sized and that the Locust was shrunk, I was expecting both to grow

now PGI can quirk according to how they perform on an even footing in terms of relative size compared to the other weight classes

SLICKNIFTY, on 17 June 2016 - 03:49 PM, said:

Wait - lights got bigger? Why would you do that? So NOBODY EVER plays them?

because they were proportionately too small, this brings them into correct scale based on their tonage when compaired to the other weight classes

MechWarrior849305, on 18 June 2016 - 01:06 AM, said:

I would like to compare these to ACH, anyway. But... there is no rescale for the last

well the ACH always did look a lot larger than the Spider and Urby, both of which have had a size increase so I am not really surprised about the ACH