88 replies to this topic

[Coralld]

Kaschkin, on 18 June 2016 - 05:58 AM, said:

Oh, now the Awesome torsoes are smaller. That's nice. Shame that it's no longer square as f***... Now it has lost part of it's charm...

The Zeus is bigger. that's nice (that's irony). Guess it was not a big enough target...

The stalker is instead getting smaller. The stalker was already small to begin with...
Don't get me wrong; i love piloting stalkers but that (imho) doesn't seem fair...

On the other side most of clan mechs are getting smaller... is that because of the more advanced clan tech?

The Awesome is less of a barn door and more or a French door, which is a good thing.

The Zeus was way under sized as it was as big as a 70t mech even though it's 85t. I just hope it gets quirks to compensate.

To be honest I did think the Stalker was fine where it was at game play wise.

No, they are getting smaller because they were to big, particularly the Nova.

Edited by Coralld, 18 June 2016 - 08:56 AM.

[Volthorne]

Deathlike, on 17 June 2016 - 11:55 PM, said:

Volume is the wrong approach.

It's actually surface area that matters more.

Let me stop you right there. If you gave the Stalker the same surface areas of the Battlemaster, it would be even smaller. Why? Because of those big f*cking boxes strapped to the side of its torso, and the big f*cking tubes it calls "legs". Those shapes are, despite being volume efficient, very surface-area inefficient. One arm on a Stalker has about 10% more surface area than a single arm from a Battlemaster. The torso? 60% more surface area, and that's after both have been shrunk by the rescale.

So, by all means go ahead and continue to campaign for using surface area.... if you want all the cylindrical 'Mechs to get really f*cking tiny.

[Deathlike]

Volthorne, on 18 June 2016 - 10:29 AM, said:

Let me stop you right there. If you gave the Stalker the same surface areas of the Battlemaster, it would be even smaller. Why? Because of those big f*cking boxes strapped to the side of its torso, and the big f*cking tubes it calls "legs". Those shapes are, despite being volume efficient, very surface-area inefficient. One arm on a Stalker has about 10% more surface area than a single arm from a Battlemaster. The torso? 60% more surface area, and that's after both have been shrunk by the rescale.

So, by all means go ahead and continue to campaign for using surface area.... if you want all the cylindrical 'Mechs to get really f*cking tiny.

You're pretty much ignorant of the situation.

The Awesome is top #1 worst Assault mech, bar none.. since Day 1. It might be thin when you shoot it from the sides, but the primary section that is most important is the front.. which by everyone's notion is a freaking barn door.

Compare this with the Stalker, which has been a metamech here and there (it's not really meta now, but still solid).. it has ZERO structure quirks, and yet is the most compact mech from its frontal position... and yet everyone that has a clue driving that mech uses that wide (occasionally shield) side to stay alive.


If you can't even tell the difference between the worst Assault mech in the game, and the mech that has survived metas more than most other mechs from the beginning of the game's existance... well, we'll surely be back to see Awesomes still NOT be a thing for a while longer.

[Volthorne]

Deathlike, on 18 June 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

snip

You went from "explain why the stalker got smaller" to "but surface area" to "but the awesome and profile". All without actually rebutting any of the points I made. Move those goalposts harder, I hear it's a good cardio exercise.

Any way you try and scale the 'Mechs so that any given 'Mech of X tonnage has the same absolute size/volume/whatever as every other 'Mech of X tonnage, some shapes are going to really, really f*ck with the method, and you can't leave them out of the method either, because then you've failed at the whole point of the rescale in the first place, which is global equalization of size/volume/whatever.

Get salty.

Edited by Volthorne, 18 June 2016 - 01:59 PM.

[Neversaydie567]

people are just upset about losing an advantage over other mechs especially for faction play. The butt hurt is real.

[045]

After looking through all the rescales, I think on a whole it's negative. 5 tonnes seems to make a bigger difference to size than I think it should. I really don't like the new look for Jagermech and Awesome, though I that is just preference. They can't make everybody happy.

As a clan player I do feel like the clan mechs got the better deal, game balance wise. I felt like Clan/IS balance was pretty good. Obviously Cheetah is a an outlyer, but so too was Thunderbolt and it's crazy PPC quirks back in the day. I love the new stance for Mad Dog and Timber Wolf, but I hope that doesn't make them too good, especially with IS staples like Black Knight becoming bigger targets. Nova is finally not gargantuan though. I guess I was really hoping that the re-scale would help make every mech about equally "competitive". I guess we're all guilty of getting our hopes up, wishing that PGI would make the changes that we desired most.

Now all this is mere speculation. I won't know until I try them out.

[Poundcake]

Atlas was already big and decreasing the majority of other mechs made it bigger, and then increasing its size on top of that made it even bigger. The thing already cant move well and its not like its survivability is over the top, its not.

This mech is now relegated to noobs, and those playing for nostalgia.

[mogs01gt]

Ok so where the **** is the Victor?

[oldradagast]

ShoeKush, on 17 June 2016 - 08:56 PM, said:

Everyone who has posted negatively here has engaged in a logical deductive fallacy. That is the fallacy that your virtual phallus will become dead faster if it gets any bigger. You've ignored the quirks system, the new placement of weapons (issues of convergence), etc. They went through in the patch notes and detailed it out for you. This was a scientific process not just a guy playing with the sliders in 3dsmax.

It's a matter of faith in PGI, not a matter of "logical fallacies" or some drek. It took them almost THREE years after the game's release to get something this important - proper mech scaling - correct, and now the players are rightfully concerned about how long it is going to take to properly rebalance mechs (probably with quirks) after everything is the right size. This isn't a "fallacy" based on epeens - it is a valid concern based on years of past experiences. Don't believe me? Tell me, what does that Pinpoint skill do, anyway? Or, how about those Clan Autocannons... the placeholder ones... that are still there 3 years after the Clan's release. Faith that problems will be fixed quickly and correctly is the concern here, but never let facts stand in the way of picking a fight with a room full of people just because you personally like what's happening.

Edited by oldradagast, 19 June 2016 - 05:52 AM.

[oldradagast]

mogs01gt, on 19 June 2016 - 05:22 AM, said:

Ok so where the **** is the Victor?

The Victor is exactly the right size, which is why it is never played. Enjoy your low, wide weapons, huge torsos, and still messed up missile tube counts. Have a few extra structural points on your torsos as compensation. At least the Zeus will be just as useless now, so that's balance, I guess.

[L Y N X]

The Rescales are interesting! It seems that most, not all , but most rescales got bigger, notable exceptions: Locust, Kit Fox, Nova, Shadow Hawk, Shadow Cat, and Heavies seemed to enjoy a size reduction more than the other weight classes, Dire Wolf, War Hawk. But generally speaking, more mechs recieved a size increase than a decrease.

To me, this means those mechs that did NOT change effectively received a slight size reduction in the relative sense, on a relative scale, the Cicada got smaller relative to the growth in size of most mechs.

Also, As mechs increase in size, assuming the scale for one meter does not change the effective speed would appear to slow, even though there is no change.

Overall, I like what the changes will do. Some OP mechs will be less OP, other mechs become slightly more viable. A 35 ton light mech is almost a medium mech, a 40 ton medium is almost a light mech, I agree that those two weights should be similar in size. Its only a 10-15% weight/mass delta, so the size delta should be similar, assuming similar densities. Given that we are comparing mechs to mechs, I think assuming similar densities is the prudent assumption to make, Unlike comparing mechs to say... Aerospace craft.

[mogs01gt]

oldradagast, on 19 June 2016 - 05:55 AM, said:

The Victor is exactly the right size, which is why it is never played. Enjoy your low, wide weapons, huge torsos, and still messed up missile tube counts. Have a few extra structural points on your torsos as compensation. At least the Zeus will be just as useless now, so that's balance, I guess.

So the balance is that 80t mechs are useless?

[Reno Blade]

Here is another detailed comparison between all weight classes for the height.
Looking at the height alone indicates that the 80 tonners are as tall as the 70 tonners now.

[Countess]

Any questions?

[BigBenn]

Height is only one measurement. I'm seeing people bring up the Grasshopper vs the Atlas... well, think of the Grasshopper as the stereotypical 7ft tall basketball center with a wire (Manute Bol) vs Andre the Giant. Both were very close in height... but very different in width and girth.

The best way to understand the differences in geometry is to compare and contrast a Black Knight and a Marauder. Same weight, different heights, different widths, different girths, yet same volumes. It can't be that hard of a concept, really.

The Panther vs the Catapult.... again, height is ONE dimension. I'm not seeing any issues between the two weight classes. The differences are pronounced enough.

Please don't tell me the geometry is no longer taught in schools....

Edited by BigBenn, 19 June 2016 - 03:57 PM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

No differences ?! only 25T between a Panther and a Catapult- Weapons and ammunition (Catapult) have no Volume ?

[Deathlike]

Volthorne, on 18 June 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

You went from "explain why the stalker got smaller" to "but surface area" to "but the awesome and profile". All without actually rebutting any of the points I made. Move those goalposts harder, I hear it's a good cardio exercise.

Any way you try and scale the 'Mechs so that any given 'Mech of X tonnage has the same absolute size/volume/whatever as every other 'Mech of X tonnage, some shapes are going to really, really f*ck with the method, and you can't leave them out of the method either, because then you've failed at the whole point of the rescale in the first place, which is global equalization of size/volume/whatever.

Get salty.

You are shooting at effectively in 2D.

Sure the shape will affect range-damage related calculations, but the profile of a target changes the simplicity of shooting it.


Here's a simple example.

Say the frontal portion of a two mechs is like this:

Mech #1:
Height: 10 "units"
Length: 10 "units"
Depth: 1 "unit"

Mech #2:
Height: 5 "units"
Length: 5 "units"
Depth: 4 "units"

If what we normally shoot at is what you see in front (height+length, no depth), then mech #2 is much harder to shoot at.

If the same mech is rotated 90 degrees away from you (left or right, it matters now), then mech #1 is much harder to shoot at.. since it has more depth, therefore it's easier to shoot at from the sides. Width would have no impact in said calculations (it's just height+depth when you're shooting at the target).

This is a very simplified version of how easy it is to shoot a mech, and if we just replaced the names of Mech #1+#2 with Awesome and Stalker respectively (of course, it's not accurate to the actual scale, but whatever) and consider that they have the same "volume" numbers (of course the Awesome+Stalker are not exactly the same tonnage in the first place, but that's not the point), the target that has a larger frontal profile tends to be shot much more easily (especially when most builds require your firepower from the front, and not so much the arm).

It's just basic logic.

It's like trying to say if we increase the bullzeye radius on a dartboard, you believe it wouldn't make a difference to hit it. If you the one that would say that, you're absolutely nuts.

Edited by Deathlike, 20 June 2016 - 08:20 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

[THumper9669]

It seems the only thing PGI got right is the Locust size as to many of the lights are now close to the assault sizes. Suggest you folks get a tech manual and look at the sizes for the mechs as no way is a 35 ton firestarter 2/3s the size of an atlas which you now have it at. Since it seems the scale is screwed for the game now and since you are resizing, how about resizing the cost of mech pack to what they should be now most mech are useless due to the resize. Size cost of mech pack should be about $5-$10 now the joke you folks have done with the mechs

[Solis Obscuri]

Nice to see the Awesome get better torso hitboxes at long last, and the Highlander size increase makes sense for its tonnage (even if it isn't the terror it once was) but I'm very surprised to see the Stalker shrink. It was already pretty compact for 85 tons.