88 replies to this topic

[ShruggingAtlas1]

White Bear 84, on 17 June 2016 - 09:36 PM, said:

Well it is sad that the zeus was made bigger, but as people have said was already too small..

I think the biggest loser is the highlander, that is just chunky munky now..

Awesome changes are nice, but could have gone a little bit further.

Yeah like restore the range quirk to the 9M! I paid good C-bills for a +25 and then you took it away not reduced it TOOK IT ALL AWAY IDK why anyone would want a 9M now!

[SlightlyMobileTurret]

ShruggingAtlas1, on 21 June 2016 - 04:56 AM, said:

Yeah like restore the range quirk to the 9M! I paid good C-bills for a +25 and then you took it away not reduced it TOOK IT ALL AWAY IDK why anyone would want a 9M now!

Why WOULDN'T they?

Only non-MC awesome with a huge engine cap. Better hardpoints than a pretty baby as well.

8Q, 8R, 9M best variants.

[X-Battler]

I got all excited "I've heard Highlander buffs are coming." Check out the patch notes full of glee, look at quirks and think "Well that's lack luster." Go over to rescale section, check out Highlander scale change and think "Wha... why PGI? It was already so terrible... why make it so much worse?"

[SlightlyMobileTurret]

The IIC got some much-needed structure and agility quirks.

The 325 cap really cramps the Highlander's style.

[Ade the Rare]

Anyone else notice the Atlas shoulder pauldrons are slightly broken in the rescale? I mean, the lower trim around the arm seems to have fallen away slightly compared to the current model...

[Vanguard319]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 20 June 2016 - 11:38 AM, said:

and your example violates physics if they are made of the same material. If you have a 1 m^3 block of steel that weighs 1 ton, you cannot take 2 tons of that same type of steel and compress it into that same cubic meter. In that Panther/Catapult example, assuming they are made of the same materials, the Catapult has more surface area, and thus more volume. Since the Panther is still quite thin and lanky, despite being tall, it can still be considered in compliance with the Square/Cube law.

Edited by Vanguard319, 21 June 2016 - 05:25 PM.

[Volthorne]

Deathlike, on 20 June 2016 - 08:18 AM, said:

<snip>profile nonsense</snip>

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.

Still dodging rebutting a single point I made. Sure, whatever. Not like it's making you look the fool or anything.

Adjusting the size of a bullseye has literally nothing to do with anything you - or I - have said so far. In fact, that's now a FOURTH topic you've danced your way to. You've now moved on to adjusting hitboxes: The size of the dartboard ('Mech dimensions) hasn't changed, you've only adjusted how easy/difficult it is to hit within a certain point zone (left/right/center torso). It doesn't make the dartboard itself any easier to hit.

You can't go by profile because certain shapes completely break or otherwise turn the metrics on their head. The Stalker, for example, can literally not have any bigger of a frontal profile; doing so would massively increase its side profile too, and throw it out-of-whack with the Battlemaster. Instead you should view it as the frontal profile of the Stalker = the side profile of the Battlemaster. Still not a perfect comparison, but miles better than anything you can toss out, I'll wager. Yes, the Stalker still has a disproportionately small frontal profile and massive array of guns, and it should probably take some agility penalties to reflect that inherent strength. But completely f*cking all of the effort that went into getting every chassis to a base-line of size parity? You, sir, are the insane one.

Any other garbage-tier and irrelevant analogies you'd care to make, or are you quite finished trying to defend a position that is literally not worth the time or effort to do so?

Edited by Volthorne, 21 June 2016 - 07:17 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Volthorne, on 21 June 2016 - 07:09 PM, said:

You can't go by profile because certain shapes completely break or otherwise turn the metrics on their head. The Stalker, for example, can literally not have any bigger of a frontal profile; doing so would massively increase its side profile too, and throw it out-of-whack with the Battlemaster. Instead you should view it as the frontal profile of the Stalker = the side profile of the Battlemaster. Still not a perfect comparison, but miles better than anything you can toss out, I'll wager.

You may be right but the issue is not: all Mechs size is calculated by the same volume metric

The issue is Hitboxes - location and size.

When you have a small Mech it could still be DOA if the CT is visible from all angles - even when you reduce its side further.

Or just to show it more simple:

same volume

[Deathlike]

Volthorne, on 21 June 2016 - 07:09 PM, said:

Still dodging rebutting a single point I made. Sure, whatever. Not like it's making you look the fool or anything.

Adjusting the size of a bullseye has literally nothing to do with anything you - or I - have said so far. In fact, that's now a FOURTH topic you've danced your way to. You've now moved on to adjusting hitboxes: The size of the dartboard ('Mech dimensions) hasn't changed, you've only adjusted how easy/difficult it is to hit within a certain point zone (left/right/center torso). It doesn't make the dartboard itself any easier to hit.

You can't go by profile because certain shapes completely break or otherwise turn the metrics on their head. The Stalker, for example, can literally not have any bigger of a frontal profile; doing so would massively increase its side profile too, and throw it out-of-whack with the Battlemaster. Instead you should view it as the frontal profile of the Stalker = the side profile of the Battlemaster. Still not a perfect comparison, but miles better than anything you can toss out, I'll wager. Yes, the Stalker still has a disproportionately small frontal profile and massive array of guns, and it should probably take some agility penalties to reflect that inherent strength. But completely f*cking all of the effort that went into getting every chassis to a base-line of size parity? You, sir, are the insane one.

Any other garbage-tier and irrelevant analogies you'd care to make, or are you quite finished trying to defend a position that is literally not worth the time or effort to do so?

Again, you don't even understand.

Take for instance a Jenner vs a Firestarter. Outside of the Oxide (since it has better quirks than the rest of the Jenners), the Firestarters have been a better Light than the Jenner - the Jenner's torso literally huge... much more larger compared to its tiny arms. The Firestarter's arms are bigger, but are better at shielding the side torsos. Before Oxides were quirked out of whack, Firestarters were a far more dominating Light than Jenners due to inherent shape... and that's even before both mechs even got quirks.


Under the same instance, a Jenner has a better profile than its Jenner IIC counterpart. The arms on the Jenner IIC are much larger than the Jenner, and often get shot off more as a consequence.


They are still both 35-tonners, but the area of an object, based on their profile from where you are viewing determines how much easier it is to shoot that mech, and its components. It's simple geometry.

This is before talking about how a 35-ton Firestarter is closely sized to a 65-ton Catapult.

Edited by Deathlike, 22 June 2016 - 03:55 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Karl Streiger, on 21 June 2016 - 11:28 PM, said:

You may be right but the issue is not: all Mechs size is calculated by the same volume metric

The issue is Hitboxes - location and size.

When you have a small Mech it could still be DOA if the CT is visible from all angles - even when you reduce its side further.

Or just to show it more simple:

same volume

and if you flip both by 90 degree to "stand up" it has an additional different effect ontop, That si what people forget, because in the end not the vlume is what matters, it is the visible area form all angles.

it's like a socccer goal, from a side angle unhittable, form the front easily hitable. But if you would deisgn a soccer Goal L shaped it would be easily hitable form a lot more angles.

Edited by Lily from animove, 30 June 2016 - 01:37 AM.

[Volthorne]

Karl Streiger, on 21 June 2016 - 11:28 PM, said:

You may be right but the issue is not: all Mechs size is calculated by the same volume metric

The issue is Hitboxes - location and size.

Hitboxes can be quirked for. Volume cannot. What's your point?

Quote

Or just to show it more simple:
<snip>
same volume

One compound object benefits more from running an XL than a STD, and the other is the opposite. What's your point? Also to remind you again, hitboxes can be quirked for. Volume cannot.

Deathlike, on 22 June 2016 - 03:31 AM, said:

Again, you don't even understand.

Are you sure about that? Would you like to phone a friend? 50/50? Ooh, I know: ask the audience!

Quote

Take for instance a Jenner vs a Firestarter. Outside of the Oxide (since it has better quirks than the rest of the Jenners), the Firestarters have been a better Light than the Jenner - the Jenner's torso literally huge... much more larger compared to its tiny arms. The Firestarter's arms are bigger, but are better at shielding the side torsos. Before Oxides were quirked out of whack, Firestarters were a far more dominating Light than Jenners due to inherent shape... and that's even before both mechs even got quirks.

So, we're completely ignoring that Firestarters can take more guns, have a better distribution of said gun across the chassis, the almost identical engines, and that they had broken hitboxes for a massive length of time even after their hitboxes were "fixed"? Oh, gee, I wonder which 'Mech people are going to take when given the choice between power-creep and not-power-creep. Literally the only difference betwen a Jenner and any other aircraft-torso IS 'Mech is that the Jenner didn't get any durability quirks; Its hitboxes are par for the course.

Quote

Under the same instance, a Jenner has a better profile than its Jenner IIC counterpart. The arms on the Jenner IIC are much larger than the Jenner, and often get shot off more as a consequence. They are still both 35-tonners, but the area of an object, based on their profile from where you are viewing determines how much easier it is to shoot that mech, and its components. It's simple geometry.

Are we also ignoring all the benefits that come with clam equipment? Because that seems like a fair balancing factor for the very marginally "worse" profile. For reference, the Jenner IIC's torso doesn't extend as far back as on the standard Jenner, though it is built up higher, and makes zero difference either way. And, as I stated above in response to Karl, that can be quirked for.

Quote

This is before talking about how a 35-ton Firestarter is closely sized to a 65-ton Catapult.

Sure, the Cataplut is "only" 2m taller... and the Firestarter is "ONLY" able to fit comfortably in the space of the Catapult's torso and half of the ears. Yep. Definitely needs to be fixed. You should let PGI know about that right away: the Catapult is STILL too big and needs to be shrunk more.

Edited by Volthorne, 23 June 2016 - 10:57 AM.

[Serpentbane]

They totally ruined the King Crab. Selling mine...

[Serpentbane]

Lily from animove, on 22 June 2016 - 03:47 AM, said:

and if you flip both by 90 degree to "stand up" it has an additional different effect ontop, That si what people forget, because in the end not the vlume is what matters, it is the visible area form all angles.

it's like a socccer goal, from a side angle unhittable, form the front easily hitable. But if you would deisgn a soccer Gal L shaped it would be easily hitable form a lot more angles.

If someone desided to design a soccer goal that way, and if it were to be included in a soccer match, why should the extra places to score a goal be covered again?

It's all about mech design. Some are build in a way where twisting have huge benifits, others dont. You can't honestly suggest PGI mage fake hitboxes to compensate for those designs? In the end, why even bother having different mechs?

PGI should focus more on roles, real teamplay and objectives instead.

[Cromwill]

Victor? My favorite mech has largely sat in his hanger for 2 years. Really used to be a fun brawling mech. Now it just dies so fast.

Victor needed a rescale more than any other mech imo.

[Revis Volek]

Volthorne, on 23 June 2016 - 10:55 AM, said:

Hitboxes can be quirked for. Volume cannot. What's your point?


One compound object benefits more from running an XL than a STD, and the other is the opposite. What's your point? Also to remind you again, hitboxes can be quirked for. Volume cannot.


Are you sure about that? Would you like to phone a friend? 50/50? Ooh, I know: ask the audience!


So, we're completely ignoring that Firestarters can take more guns, have a better distribution of said gun across the chassis, the almost identical engines, and that they had broken hitboxes for a massive length of time even after their hitboxes were "fixed"? Oh, gee, I wonder which 'Mech people are going to take when given the choice between power-creep and not-power-creep. Literally the only difference betwen a Jenner and any other aircraft-torso IS 'Mech is that the Jenner didn't get any durability quirks; Its hitboxes are par for the course.


Are we also ignoring all the benefits that come with clam equipment? Because that seems like a fair balancing factor for the very marginally "worse" profile. For reference, the Jenner IIC's torso doesn't extend as far back as on the standard Jenner, though it is built up higher, and makes zero difference either way. And, as I stated above in response to Karl, that can be quirked for.


Sure, the Cataplut is "only" 2m taller... and the Firestarter is "ONLY" able to fit comfortably in the space of the Catapult's torso and half of the ears. Yep. Definitely needs to be fixed. You should let PGI know about that right away: the Catapult is STILL too big and needs to be shrunk more.

Volume cant be quirked because that just a dumb sentence, however via modeling you can move weight around. If you are designing a mech from the ground up and see it has a huge torso that wont play well why not just makes its legs and arm slightly larger and shrink the torso?


Volume doesnt need a quirk its needs to be used correctly. Not saying Alex did a bad job but he did his job with half the tools and no formula. Also i dont think they redid hitboxes on any mechs they more then likely just scaled them to the new mech proportions but that in itself is something that will need play time on the servers to see if they need adjustments.

I for one can shoot Grasshoppers, Atlas and Black knights even when they are hiding behind cover most the time because they are just plain huge compared to the rest of the game.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Vanguard319, on 21 June 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

and your example violates physics if they are made of the same material. If you have a 1 m^3 block of steel that weighs 1 ton, you cannot take 2 tons of that same type of steel and compress it into that same cubic meter. In that Panther/Catapult example, assuming they are made of the same materials, the Catapult has more surface area, and thus more volume. Since the Panther is still quite thin and lanky, despite being tall, it can still be considered in compliance with the Square/Cube law.

Thats the Problem same dense and Material for each Part ist a very terrible Idea! the Shieldarm from a Centurion have not the same Material,Weight and and Dense of the Weaponarm , The LRM Launcherboxes of the Catapult have not the same Material and dense ,as the Torso with Engine,CP (or have the Leg and Arm a Cockpit and a Engine?),Weapons,Ammunition and many Space for the Large Weapons+ammuniton .The 300 Engine has not the same dense like a 200 Engine, ....the same Dense for all ist a fail ....a Heavy mech hase more empty Space for Larger Weapons+ammunition,Bigger Engine ,as a Light Mech.....Ballistic/Missle Weapons+Ammo need more Space as Energy weapons.
Build in a Arm a AC5 and ammo , or 2 Large Laser ,or 3 M-Laser +HS=same Arm ,not same dense and Weight

not other Game have this Idea ,that have a Humvee the same Dense a Abrams tank , or a Military Quad..

A Me 262 have a other Profile and Hitboxes as a Thunderbolt Bomber.and not the same Viewsize from all Angle..The Tie Fighter has a Bad sideprofile against a X-Wing...live with this

the Catapult size is very better now, now shrunk all other Mechs, give it more agility and make faster , and more to the Lore (Tallest Mech 3025 with 16m ! =Atlas)

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 29 June 2016 - 10:04 PM.

[Walsung]

the mechs that i think come out of things most poorly are those with narrow wastes and other internal voids. The volume of the models vs the hitable surfaces serves them poorly.

[Karl Streiger]

Walsung, on 29 June 2016 - 11:33 PM, said:

the mechs that i think come out of things most poorly are those with narrow wastes and other internal voids. The volume of the models vs the hitable surfaces serves them poorly.

exactly: volume vs artwork - don't have to be a grade A student to understand the issue.

not even considered a zylinder or sphere

Edited by Karl Streiger, 30 June 2016 - 01:14 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Serpentbane, on 24 June 2016 - 01:32 PM, said:

If someone desided to design a soccer goal that way, and if it were to be included in a soccer match, why should the extra places to score a goal be covered again?

It's all about mech design. Some are build in a way where twisting have huge benifits, others dont. You can't honestly suggest PGI mage fake hitboxes to compensate for those designs? In the end, why even bother having different mechs?

PGI should focus more on roles, real teamplay and objectives instead.

No, they can'T do that, Mechs designs are made by the cannon, thats why you have a regular soccer goal and a L shaped on the other side. Now additional, you alos alow both teams to choose a soccer goal no one takes the L shaped one.
These aextra angesl need compensation for the sake of balance because it makes some stuff inferior, and in a game of choice within a competitive surrounding nearly no one willingly takes the inferior stuff. The point of having all these mechs is diversity and this requires them to be at leats somehwat equal in possible performance. Roles won't fix that issue

Karl Streiger, on 30 June 2016 - 01:13 AM, said:

exactly: volume vs artwork - don't have to be a grade A student to understand the issue.

not even considered a zylinder or sphere

given the discussions we have, a lot still don't seem to understand.

Edited by Lily from animove, 30 June 2016 - 01:43 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Battletech is not only big Stompy Robots game (for Guys willing equal sized balanced Robots -better going to HAWKEN), is a Game for Combined Warfare ,with many Weaponssytsems, from the Soldier with Laserrifle and KSR Launcher ,to Tanks,Jetfighters, Hovercrafts, Ships, Spacecrafts.

Make the Mechs bigger=the Weaponsystem bigger J the Mechs not alone in BT Universe and have a second Part of the Battlefield, Tanks, Aerospacefighters, Helicopters used the same Weaponssystems …Tanks a Dangerous Counterparts to the Mechs, …What? This tiny Yellow Jacket Helicoper carry a Gauss? That tiny Toycannon on the Mini-Tank is a AC10??? And dangerous for my 20m Atlas?this little Soldier carrying a KSR Launcher?

Loresized Shadowhawk against (before Rescaling SH) against Tank


MWO Hunchback before Rescale against More Loresized Mechs

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 30 June 2016 - 02:26 AM.