Jump to content

IS Heavy Re-Scales

rescale

126 replies to this topic

#81 Kotev

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 165 posts

Posted 21 June 2016 - 06:32 PM

They did good with rescales, which i cant say for the minimap. You all have to understand that IS mechs were overpowered and not scaled properly so now they are not that powerfull and we clan players have better odds of competing in faction play.

#82 Wibbledtodeath

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 22 June 2016 - 05:32 AM

Having played the Catapult a bit- I find it really seems to play much the same. Has not become OP (sadly- I do love the cat).

However, it can now hide behind things and shoot under stuff it couldn't before. Gets more hits on LT & RT now, also on arms (for jester and K2) and getting legged less- which is all probably good but I came to rather like the CT magnet mech that was. Basically, still plays much the same, just less of a hapless victim for LRMs and spread damage weapons.

Do wish the old model still existed in game along side the new model, even if in a downscaled format (I know it would be additional work with animations and commo spec etc- this may be less an issue for hero mechs though) as it just looked tougher/more primitive than the new more refined/pugface-junior version we have now. PGI: ADD rather than replace assets in the game please...variety is good.

#83 Kaptain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,283 posts
  • LocationNorth America

Posted 22 June 2016 - 09:26 AM

View PostKoniving, on 20 June 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

We already have one.
It's called MWO.

It threw out the TT rules (all weapons fire 3 to 38 times their TT ratings, mechs can't climb, go prone or settle Hull Down, mechs can't punch or kick or use improvised weapons or melee equipment, there is no infantry, tanks, actively participating conventional aircraft or aerotech fighters a severely restricted set of weapons where TT in the same time period has about 3 times as many weapons and ammo types, no out-of-mech experiences or Grand Theft Mech, there are no knockdowns for 20 damage, heatsinks no longer melt down from thermal abuse, alpha strikes are pinpoint and have no consequences beyond shutting down for a half second -- as opposed to being shutdown for as long as thirty seconds in extreme cases with 20 seconds as an average and possible pilot injury, death or blackout, mech joints fusing etc. A hit to the cockpit fails to cause any injury to the pilot, there is no pilot fatigue, there is no throwing objects, objectives are effectively meaningless rather than a requirement of progression, planetary cannons do not shoot down dropships before they make deliveries....or shoot at anything. Bases lack destructable walls and gates or capital-class defenses [20 damage capital class = 200 damage against a mech], no enemies inside buildings or ambushes from trees, no slowing down to a crawl in water or quad mechs, no building collapsing from standing on it or no building destruction, no slipping on wet pavement or barrel rolls from taking sharp turns at full speed, no sense of continuity between matches with repair and rearm and the risk of unrepairable damage...the list goes on.)

And fixed hardpoints have nothing to do with lore, not to mention there's such a ridiculous amount of them. You could turn an Atlas D-DC into an Atlas K and then into an Atlas S-2. All you needed was large amounts of time and about 4 to 5 times more money than it would have taken to just buy an Atlas S-2.


Thanks for reminding me why I uninstalled in the first place. <Goes off to do something productive>

#84 NUSQUAM

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Decimator
  • The Decimator
  • 41 posts

Posted 22 June 2016 - 03:33 PM

A lot of these mechs may have similar front profiles but are substantially thinner front to back. So if yo torso twist...

#85 CrimsonOdyssey

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 54 posts
  • LocationMinnesota, USA

Posted 22 June 2016 - 04:14 PM

So uhh does anyone else understand the reasoning behind making a 65 ton mech (Catapult) the same height (and almost size) as a 35 ton mech (Wolfhound)? Why are light mechs getting a massive nerf when they have the least impact on most games already? I want an actual valid answer.

#86 MrVei

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 97 posts

Posted 23 June 2016 - 10:00 PM

the poor Marauder got kinda a nerf, it gets its legs blown off easy now, and ams is a must cuz lrm lock on is a fast death. the CT take more dmg then it use to it feels. over all my timbie is more tanky then my marauder now, and before this update it was more even.. I'm kinda sad, the marauder was my all time fav, now I'm on it less and less.

#87 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 24 June 2016 - 01:42 AM

View PostCrimsonOdyssey, on 22 June 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

So uhh does anyone else understand the reasoning behind making a 65 ton mech (Catapult) the same height (and almost size) as a 35 ton mech (Wolfhound)? Why are light mechs getting a massive nerf when they have the least impact on most games already? I want an actual valid answer.

One. Canon.
Two. Side view. Look at the side view. It would help if there was a top view too. It is still a target as big as the other, taller 65 ton mechs even at this height.
Also, the Wolfhound is as tall as..
Vindicator, blackjack, Hunchback and Enforcer. 45, 45, 50, 50.

#88 Wintersdark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,375 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationCalgary, AB

Posted 24 June 2016 - 02:30 AM

View PostCrimsonOdyssey, on 22 June 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

So uhh does anyone else understand the reasoning behind making a 65 ton mech (Catapult) the same height (and almost size) as a 35 ton mech (Wolfhound)? Why are light mechs getting a massive nerf when they have the least impact on most games already? I want an actual valid answer.


It's nowhere near the same size, don't be daft. It's not even close.

But here: this has flaws, but it's a pixel-count comparison Navid just did: http://mwomercs.com/...es-and-numbers/

But just turn that catapult sideways, and turn that wolfhound sideways.

The wolfhound isn't even close to the same size.

Note how Navid's data shows the wolfhound is... Oh. Roughly half the size of the catapult.

Marvel at how bad you are at estimating volume.

#89 MrVei

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 97 posts

Posted 24 June 2016 - 01:41 PM

View PostZodie, on 19 June 2016 - 12:20 PM, said:

Marauder size increase lookes like a buff

no it is not... the 3R is still okish, the the others get legged often

#90 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,450 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 24 June 2016 - 08:41 PM

Tha Catapult 65t has only Misslelauncher, and Torsoweapons-the 75t Timberwolf haveTorsoweapons, Misslelauncher and 2! Weaponarms...have the Weaponarms not tonnage ??? must the Timber shrunk ???

Oh...with PGIs Method ,have Mechs in the Sideview nothing or not full full (Pixel) arms , anly in Front/Rearview...the method is a fail

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 24 June 2016 - 09:05 PM.


#91 Wintersdark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,375 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationCalgary, AB

Posted 24 June 2016 - 10:47 PM

View PostOld MW4 Ranger, on 24 June 2016 - 08:41 PM, said:

Tha Catapult 65t has only Misslelauncher, and Torsoweapons-the 75t Timberwolf haveTorsoweapons, Misslelauncher and 2! Weaponarms...have the Weaponarms not tonnage ??? must the Timber shrunk ???

Oh...with PGIs Method ,have Mechs in the Sideview nothing or not full full (Pixel) arms , anly in Front/Rearview...the method is a fail


Dude, give it up. It is what it is and it isn't going to change. I cant even tell what your goal is, other than largely incoherent ranting.

The Timberwolf, however, did not shrink. They lowered it's stance a bit (from release a major TBR complaint was that it stood way too tall - not that it was too tall, just that it stood too tall) but did not change the mech's scale at all.

The Timberwolf remains significantly larger than the catapult, as it should be at +10 tons.

View PostLupus Aurelius, on 21 June 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

Grasshopper - 70 tons
Timberwolf - 75 tons

And the Grasshopper is taller than an Atlas, and with wider legs than before?!?!?!?! Timby comes up to about chest level to it?!?!?!? Terrible change for Grasshopper, seriously, when you originally scaled these, you volume data must have been way off, there is no way a Grasshopper would have the relative size it does now.

Other than the Thunderbolt and Catapult, all the other heavies rescaling ridiculously big in comparison to to clan mechs and IS Assaults.


Look, another person who's utterly incapable of understanding volume.

The Timberwolf is shorter, but massively wider and longer.

#92 Alienized

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 3,781 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 25 June 2016 - 12:38 AM

i dare to say that comparing a maus to the modern abrams tank is just as fail as it can get.....
considering the technology used in modern engines, interior, armor and literally all other improved technologies from over 30(!) years you cant really do any comparison from modern tanks to WW2 era tanks after all.
look at the gun alone, the massive armor plates the Maus had. a abrams doesnt have all this, thus is ALOT lighter.
modern armor is so much more sturdy AND lighter than WW2 armor that they simply dont need the massive 200mm armor at the front anymore.

and this all has nothing to do with this game.

this rescale had nothing to do with balance at all.
it was purely to bring all mechs to one line with each other for each size.
or tell me, is a timber wolf so hard to kill from the sides? or from front? it still has a bloody huge silhouette.
the hopper instead is just pretty tall but apart from this? its side is slim, its not nearly as wide as the TBR so
just stop comparing such things.

#93 no one

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 533 posts

Posted 25 June 2016 - 01:25 AM

View PostMrVei, on 24 June 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

no it is not... the 3R is still okish, the the others get legged often


Tried the Marauder and I'm inclined to agree that it's a bit too leggy, but that's the Marauder. The unseen Mara was like, 60% leg by volume. The main issue I have with the design is that 3rd ballistics slot on the PPC variant sits right in front of the cockpit. I tried to run the thing with 3 AC/2s* and it blinds itself with it's own muzzle flash every time it fires.

*I wish Battletech rules applied and you could pop an AC/20 in there and share it's critical allotment with the CT. Having 3 ballistics points in one side torso is pretty useless for IS 'Mechs with MWO rules.

#94 Lupus Aurelius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 509 posts
  • LocationHarlech, Outreach

Posted 25 June 2016 - 06:45 AM

View PostWintersdark, on 24 June 2016 - 10:47 PM, said:

Dude, give it up. It is what it is and it isn't going to change. I cant even tell what your goal is, other than largely incoherent ranting.

The Timberwolf, however, did not shrink. They lowered it's stance a bit (from release a major TBR complaint was that it stood way too tall - not that it was too tall, just that it stood too tall) but did not change the mech's scale at all.

The Timberwolf remains significantly larger than the catapult, as it should be at +10 tons.

Look, another person who's utterly incapable of understanding volume.

The Timberwolf is shorter, but massively wider and longer.


As an engineer, I understand volume quite well. However, you are another person that confuses mass with volume. If these mechs were all solid throughout, of the same material, like statues, then using a mass to volume ratio would apply.

But they are not solid, the internal spaces of a mech are just that, empty spaces. Some mechs were quite compact, with little space between components, others, like the Orion, were known to have large internal spaces, making maintenance exceptional easy, and loved by the techs for being so. Some mechs had cramped cockpits, others had basically suites with bed, cooking and washing facilities.

Also, all the components in a mech are not of the same density. Myomer would be less dense than armor plating. The larger the surface area, the more weight in armor that would be required, since armor "tonnage" is related also to thickness/volume/mass/density. A larger frame would require more tonnage in dedicated to the skeletal structure of the mech as well. Whereas other components, weapon systems for example, would be a composite of different materials with different densities.

So, on the level of ignorance, mass does not necessarily equal volume, unless you are talking of completely solid objects composed of the same material. I'd say you fall in that category...

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 25 June 2016 - 07:11 AM.


#95 Wintersdark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,375 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationCalgary, AB

Posted 25 June 2016 - 10:26 AM

View PostLupus Aurelius, on 25 June 2016 - 06:45 AM, said:


As an engineer, I understand volume quite well. However, you are another person that confuses mass with volume. If these mechs were all solid throughout, of the same material, like statues, then using a mass to volume ratio would apply.

I don't confuse mass with volume. Not at all. I'm completely aware of what mass, density and volume are, and the relationships between them.

Quote

But they are not solid, the internal spaces of a mech are just that, empty spaces. Some mechs were quite compact, with little space between components, others, like the Orion, were known to have large internal spaces, making maintenance exceptional easy, and loved by the techs for being so. Some mechs had cramped cockpits, others had basically suites with bed, cooking and washing facilities.

Also, all the components in a mech are not of the same density. Myomer would be less dense than armor plating. The larger the surface area, the more weight in armor that would be required, since armor "tonnage" is related also to thickness/volume/mass/density. A larger frame would require more tonnage in dedicated to the skeletal structure of the mech as well. Whereas other components, weapon systems for example, would be a composite of different materials with different densities.
Yes, yes, yes.

I get that. But do you understand that what you're proposing here is that all mechs should be totally random sizes? If that's the case. We need a good way to get mechs to appropriate sizes. There is no better alternative. If you're in favour of random sizes instead, then pretend that they're not using density at all (as that's what they're doing: Assigning mechs a consistent average density - not assuming that every part of the mech has the same density, but rather than mechs have an average density that's reasonably comparable from mech to mech.

Quote

So, on the level of ignorance, mass does not necessarily equal volume, unless you are talking of completely solid objects composed of the same material. I'd say you fall in that category...


Oh, for gods sake.

Obviously, we're not assuming that all mechs are solid objects made of a single material. The assumption we're working from here is that all mechs have a consistent average density. Given a consistent average density (the frame, myomer muscles, etc scaling relatively evenly with increased mech size) then this works out just fine.


These are war machines, built for combat, and making them unnecessarily large (read: wasted open space inside the mech) is a problem, so it'd be avoided. Thus, lets take humans as a rough analogy. The average density of a fit soldier is going to be fairly consistent between different soldiers, be they large or small. They're made of a variety of materials, all with different densities, but yet the overall average density is fairly consistent. We're doing the same thing here.

Is that perfect? No.

But nothing would be.

We needed a consistent way to scale mechs, that would treat all mechs equally. Can you think of any other way to do it? No matter what you chose to do, you'd end up with people pissed off that their precious baby got bigger, or alternatively didn't get small enough relative to some other mech.

The ONLY alternative to volumetric scaling based off a consistent average density is wholly random arbitrary scaling; as I've said elsewhere, "Scale By Paul".

They'd NEVER get that right. It'd never be anywhere close to right, and in fact would be better to simply never do at all - you may as well just take the (old) current scale as the "correct" scale and move on.

If they tried to scale for balance... Lets assume, for a laughably stupid moment, that they could do it right. They scale all the mechs based on the current meta, so poor mechs get smaller, good mechs get bigger. Balance is improved! Then the meta changes. Now mechs that were poor and got smaller are better, and thus double buffed, while the good mechs that got bigger are suddenly poorer AND bigger. Good one!

The only reasonably accurate method to take is through working off the assumption that all mechs have roughly consistent average density and going from there. That works now, and it allows us to know in advance how large any new mech is going to be. It makes mech size totally predictable. We never need to worry about a new mech being scaled wrong.

That's it.

Anything else is pointless.

Maybe you feel they did it wrong - you could argue the old scale was better, but while you're welcome to that opinion, it's useless and doesn't matter, because that scale is gone. You may feel there was a better way, but all this time I haven't heard a single person suggest even a remotely better way of doing it.

But, it doesn't matter now. They have been scaled, PGI isn't going to do it again. That's a lot of time and effort, when they can just adjust quirks for balance easily.

Edited by Wintersdark, 25 June 2016 - 10:26 AM.


#96 Tarl Cabot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Tai-sho
  • Tai-sho
  • 7,411 posts
  • LocationImperial City, Luthien - Draconis Combine

Posted 25 June 2016 - 07:09 PM

Quote

The only reasonably accurate method to take is through working off the assumption that all mechs have roughly consistent average density and going from there. That works now, and it allows us to know in advance how large any new mech is going to be. It makes mech size totally predictable. We never need to worry about a new mech being scaled wrong.

That's it.

Anything else is pointless.

Maybe you feel they did it wrong - you could argue the old scale was better, but while you're welcome to that opinion, it's useless and doesn't matter, because that scale is gone. You may feel there was a better way, but all this time I haven't heard a single person suggest even a remotely better way of doing it.

But, it doesn't matter now. They have been scaled, PGI isn't going to do it again. That's a lot of time and effort, when they can just adjust quirks for balance easily.
Edited by Wintersdark, Today, 01:26 PM.


This. Even after looking over my posts, I can not see PGI doing anything different, just wished that they had this in play earlier, a better foundation at the start or soon afterwards that would have helped in mech construction/designing with a more defining atmosphere.

This may also help future developers of the BT/MW universe when developing it in a FPS while being based on pre-existing basic designs. And if PGI does decide to ramp it up to another gaming engine in the future, what changes would/could they make to the mech designs, chances that would not break the model but where overall size comes into play.

Looking over the voting on mech rescales, part of the info missing is why was a Grasshopper as tall as it was, and now it is even taller. PGI may have had something in play but nothing definitive. With volumetric usage, the Grasshopper would actually need a redesign to bring it down in height, by adding depth to the torso and thickening up the legs/arms, which would increase its volume, allowing it to be shrunk some, the main reason the t-bolt shrunk. Have you seen that hunch on its back!?!? :)

I do not see PGI redesigning any other mechs. The difficult part is that IS mechs are mostly humanoid vs Clan's chicken walkers, and the vulnerability of isXL engines vs cXL survivibilities. But that is another discussion.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 25 June 2016 - 07:22 PM.


#97 Omniseed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Leftenant
  • Leftenant
  • 255 posts

Posted 25 June 2016 - 08:45 PM

View PostAlan Davion, on 17 June 2016 - 08:10 PM, said:


I believe the games you want are Mechwarrior 2/Mercenaries then. You can do whatever you like with the weapons, but you still operate based on TT rules.

Seriously, you need to operate on TT rules, otherwise we'd have IS mechs running around with Clan XLs, weapons and Endo/Ferro, and in that case, why both even having IS weapons in the game?

Jesus people, think before you type some of this stuff.



They want MechAssault DS

#98 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,450 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 25 June 2016 - 10:41 PM

Posted Image

Quote

The Timberwolf remains significantly larger than the catapult, as it should be at +10 tons.
yes , and the Timber has two Weaponarms , the catapult nothing, no wodner, the Timberwolf is larger...after the last past , this game has nothing to doing mor with BT or Balancing (make it bigger is the wrongest way for this game), best wishes to the Future with this Mechshooter ..bye bye



Quote

i dare to say that comparing a maus to the modern abrams tank is just as fail as it can get.....
considering the technology used in modern engines, interior, armor and literally all other improved technologies from over 30(!) years you cant really do any comparison from modern tanks to WW2 era tanks after all.
look at the gun alone, the massive armor plates the Maus had. a abrams doesnt have all this, thus is ALOT lighter.
modern armor is so much more sturdy AND lighter than WW2 armor that they simply dont need the massive 200mm armor at the front anymore.

and this all has nothing to do with this game.

this rescale had nothing to do with balance at all.
it was purely to bring all mechs to one line with each other for each size.
or tell me, is a timber wolf so hard to kill from the sides? or from front? it still has a bloody huge silhouette.
the hopper instead is just pretty tall but apart from this? its side is slim, its not nearly as wide as the TBR so
just stop comparing such things.


Hi Alienized :)

My Intention , was seeing taht Mass have nothing to do with Volume ,not more, and you will balanced Sized for all Mechs ??? reconstructed all Mechs new ,the only way for this, give all a Standard Body ...






from one direction or in a particular terrain is a mech always have another profile than another Mech, no matter what size it is, and if only the Huntsman the back fine looking out that has not another Mech

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 25 June 2016 - 10:48 PM.


#99 Wintersdark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,375 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationCalgary, AB

Posted 26 June 2016 - 03:05 AM

View PostOld MW4 Ranger, on 25 June 2016 - 10:41 PM, said:

Posted Image
yes , and the Timber has two Weaponarms , the catapult nothing, no wodner, the Timberwolf is larger...after the last past , this game has nothing to doing mor with BT or Balancing (make it bigger is the wrongest way for this game), best wishes to the Future with this Mechshooter ..bye bye



Why? Mechs are big. They're supposed to be big. The vast majority of the rescaling had absolutely no measurable impact on game play.

What are you even on about? You're ranting, but utterly failing to make a single coherent point.

Making some mechs bigger makes this a "mech shooter"? How does the size even play in there, particularly given how minor most of the changes are? "Has nothing to do with BT"?

I can't help but think you're just upset because a favourite mech of yours got a little bit bigger. Give it up.

Edited by Wintersdark, 26 June 2016 - 03:05 AM.


#100 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,450 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 26 June 2016 - 04:27 AM

View PostWintersdark, on 26 June 2016 - 03:05 AM, said:

Why? Mechs are big. They're supposed to be big. The vast majority of the rescaling had absolutely no measurable impact on game play.

What are you even on about? You're ranting, but utterly failing to make a single coherent point.

Making some mechs bigger makes this a "mech shooter"? How does the size even play in there, particularly given how minor most of the changes are? "Has nothing to do with BT"?

I can't help but think you're just upset because a favourite mech of yours got a little bit bigger. Give it up.

:D Bigger Targets =slower Movement by same Speed= less Cover=sinking TTk move MWO more to Mechassault as mechwarrior





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users