776 replies to this topic

[Bluefalcon13]

MrJeffers, on 18 June 2016 - 11:40 AM, said:

Its about the density or the weight of volume. Lets say they choose 1 cubic foot = 100 pounds. That would mean a 35 ton mech has a volume of 700 cubic feet (35 * 2000lbs/ 1cf = 100 lbs). If they choose 1 CF = 200 lbs that would mean the volume is 350 CF ((35 * 2000)/200). They chose a number that is too large and so the volume on too many mechs was too small on their scale so they had to grow in volume to account for their weight.

It has nothing to do with map scale or size measurements, its about density or the weight of each cubic foot or cubic meter used to determine the volume.

OK, but if you are in an atlas, your height is still proportional to you mass, so pounds per cubic foot really only changes the whole scale. In your example EVERYTHING would be half sized, and therefore the only thing that changes is the map in relation to you as the player's perspective.

Basically, same system, but now maps need tweaking as steps may be too big. The other result is that velocities are going to appear to increase as you smaller mech is now still covering the same amount of ground while being smaller. If I scale an apple to 1cm per 1m, and scale myself by exactly the same scale, the apple is still the same size when looking from my perspective, and the world is just larger. That is what it seems to me that you are asking for, but maybe I truely don't understand what you are saying should have been done.

[MrJeffers]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

Still doesn't matter what value they picked. Relative scale would be the same. Absolute scale (scale in relation to the game world) would change... that's it. So the Jenner would still have gotten scaled larger in proportion to the Nova being scaled smaller - and in the end they'd still look the same when set side-by-side as the do now, regardless of your choice of density.

And its the absolute scale that matters for game play. Bigger targets die faster. So with the majority of the mechs growing in size it's going to be bad for TTK and game play. I fully understand the relative sizes are directly proportional to weight and I have no issue with that, but game play is going to suffer because the physical size of the mechs in game have grown.

[LordKnightFandragon]

When according to that scale, pretty much all the mechs are still 3-5m to tall. All the mechs should come down to 12m in height and work from there.

[Mcgral18]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 11:39 AM, said:

They don't. The relative sizes of mechs would be the same regardless of which density number PGI chose. People are struggling to understand this, sadly.

We understand this, but you don't

Relative is useless when weapons stay the same


Bigger target= dead faster, period


"But weapons may or may not be changing in 2 months!"
That's two months away, that's a long time to keep things useless

[MrJeffers]

Bluefalcon13, on 18 June 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

OK, but if you are in an atlas, your height is still proportional to you mass, so pounds per cubic foot really only changes the whole scale. In your example EVERYTHING would be half sized, and therefore the only thing that changes is the map in relation to you as the player's perspective.

Basically, same system, but now maps need tweaking as steps may be too big. The other result is that velocities are going to appear to increase as you smaller mech is now still covering the same amount of ground while being smaller. If I scale an apple to 1cm per 1m, and scale myself by exactly the same scale, the apple is still the same size when looking from my perspective, and the world is just larger. That is what it seems to me that you are asking for, but maybe I truely don't understand what you are saying should have been done.

None of that changes, only the physical height/depth of the mechs change. It doesn't affect the maps at all or weapon velocities etc. Instead of being 10 meters tall before, and now being 12 meters tall, it would mean that it would have remained at 10 meters tall or been shrunk to 9 meters tall. It doesn't change the speeds or how long it takes to cross the map or anything else.

It's like you are saying that if you are in a sports car traveling at 60kph its going to take longer to travel 100km than a semi-truck traveling at 60kph because the sports car is smaller. Volume/density has nothing to to with that.

[ScarecrowES]

MrJeffers, on 18 June 2016 - 11:49 AM, said:

And its the absolute scale that matters for game play. Bigger targets die faster. So with the majority of the mechs growing in size it's going to be bad for TTK and game play. I fully understand the relative sizes are directly proportional to weight and I have no issue with that, but game play is going to suffer because the physical size of the mechs in game have grown.

What you say only makes sense if the perspective of the thing you're shooting from has stayed static regardless of the size increase or decrease of what you're shooting at. This is not the case here, though, is it?

If you increase or decrease two objects proportionally to each other, then both objects will appear to be the same size relative to each other regardless of the amount changed. So absolute scale doesn't matter in the least in terms of ease of targeting, except in extreme cases where it effects scale relative to weapon range - and that would require a MASSIVE change in absolute scaling. Absolute scaling didn't change during the rescale, so this is a non-issue.

[TheMadTypist]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

The complaint here is... I dunno... kinda silly. By your same argument, most AAA developers that build games in active multiplayer game worlds are treating their games like betas... because all of them do the exact same thing. There is a constant shuffle going on to adjust balance and fix core issues. This is the norm in modern gaming.

Except this overhaul isn't being made for balance, it isn't being made for gameplay improvements, it's being made for consistency's own sake.

Other developers keep moving forward, building on an existing core, tweaking what doesn't work already and then adding new elements. They don't redesign whole swathes of existing, working content every three months. PGI's behavior wouldn't bother me so damn much if we weren't just treading water. We're going in circles, not making progress.

[ScarecrowES]

TheMadTypist, on 18 June 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

Except this overhaul isn't being made for balance, it isn't being made for gameplay improvements, it's being made for consistency's own sake.

Other developers keep moving forward, building on an existing core, tweaking what doesn't work already and then adding new elements. They don't redesign whole swathes of existing, working content every three months. PGI's behavior wouldn't bother me so damn much if we weren't just treading water. We're going in circles, not making progress.

Erm... you haven't played too many games these days, have you? I can think of literally dozens of games in the modern era that have made HUGE overarching changes to their game after release... for balance and other reasons.

Hell, Destiny alone is a perfect example of a game that is constantly in flux. And there's a game where even the core gameplay mechanics are not safe from change. These days, games that exist wholely in the multiplayer space follow that mold more often than not.

[Joe Decker]

The Rescale will be a Disaster if they do not do another requirkening soon after.

PGI got a Talent to drive more and more of their Player Base away by making the Game more and more one-sided.

Just a few Examples : Battletech got Missiles, Ballistics, Energy Weapons. In this Game only Ballistics and Energy are viable while Energy are overall the current Meta.

Firepower on the Field is so high that no one in Public Quick Play is pushing which leads to the majority of Matches People just stand around and wait to get killed. No unpredictable Gameplay anymore. No offensive Gameplay anymore in 80% of the Matches.

Of the 4 Weightclasses only heavy and medium Mechs are playable currently, Assault Mechs too slow with no Teamplay get isolated and killed quick there is nothing like Teamplay in Public Game currently, Light Mechs were nerfed over and over again and currently maybe 4% of the Players use them at all. As you will not see Light Mechs anymore in the Future due to the Rescaling that is another Component that is falling away from the Game making it more onesided and boring.

The Gamemode/Mapvote resulted in only 4 Maps being played over and over again, also Skirmish Mode gets most Votes so you do not see the other Gamemodes often anymore.

So of all the Things that this Game is offering we are maybe using 40% which makes a boring Gameplay and will result in Playernumbers dropping further. We are close to the Point where the Drop in Playernumbers will affect our Ability to play the Game.

So overall the rescaling is another Step into the Grave for this Game and that is sad to see. To have an interesting Game where People stay and play you need the many Options that Battletech is offering.

So they better find a Way to make Light/Assault/Missile Mechs viable again soon or the Game will be a dead one. They should also have a Look at their Voting System again and possibly just let People vote on Gamemode.

[MrJeffers]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

What you say only makes sense if the perspective of the thing you're shooting from has stayed static regardless of the size increase or decrease of what you're shooting at. This is not the case here, though, is it?

If you increase or decrease two objects proportionally to each other, then both objects will appear to be the same size relative to each other regardless of the amount changed. So absolute scale doesn't matter in the least in terms of ease of targeting, except in extreme cases where it effects scale relative to weapon range - and that would require a MASSIVE change in absolute scaling. Absolute scaling didn't change during the rescale, so this is a non-issue.

You are sorely mistaken. I am 6 feet tall, and I'll have a far better chance of shooting the side of a semi truck than I would a sports car because the target is larger. That doesn't change if I am 2 feet tall, or 50 feet tall. Absolute size *is* the key factor in hitting something. Unless you are telling me that hitting an atlas is just as easy as hitting a locust. Since absolute size doesn't matter.
Absolute size is the key criteria in hitting a target, and this rescale has moved the wrong way on absolute size.

To put it another way, look at the pixel counts of the front facing of the mech. When the mechs have grown they have more pixels, and more area to shoot that will count. It absolutely does matter.

Edited by MrJeffers, 18 June 2016 - 12:03 PM.

[GRiPSViGiL]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

What you say only makes sense if the perspective of the thing you're shooting from has stayed static regardless of the size increase or decrease of what you're shooting at. This is not the case here, though, is it?

If you increase or decrease two objects proportionally to each other, then both objects will appear to be the same size relative to each other regardless of the amount changed. So absolute scale doesn't matter in the least in terms of ease of targeting, except in extreme cases where it effects scale relative to weapon range - and that would require a MASSIVE change in absolute scaling. Absolute scaling didn't change during the rescale, so this is a non-issue.

Exactly...negligible impact to actual gameplay. Some swear it will be a game changer. Reducing volume by the small percentages are not gonna make people miss any more or less than they already do within optimal ranges per weapon.

[Mavairo]

NoiseCrypt, on 18 June 2016 - 11:39 AM, said:

Please provide a sample of two mechs of same tonnage but with different volume after the rescale.

Grasshopper, meet mr Warhammer.

Grasshopper is massively bigger.

Grasshopper...meet TimberWolf.
Grasshopper is massively bigger.

Grasshopper, meet Battlemaster.... same freaking size.

Grasshopper meet Cataphract... Cataphract is a smaller, more compact midget by comparison... inspite of having the same tonnage.

Highlander...meet Battlemaster. Only five tons between them...and you'd think it was 30.

Volume doesn't mean ****. Size is what matters. And a mech that was already over sized, got even freaking bigger. Along with a great many already over sized mechs.

Even if the mechs in this game some how all follow the same volume per tonnage (and I doubt that they do) it doesn't change the fact that their SIZE is all over the place.

[ScarecrowES]

MrJeffers, on 18 June 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

You are sorely mistaken. I am 6 feet tall, and I'll have a far better chance of shooting the side of a semi truck than I would a sports car because the target is larger. That doesn't change if I am 2 feet tall, or 50 feet tall. Absolute size *is* the key factor in hitting something. Unless you are telling me that hitting an atlas is just as easy as hitting a locust. Since absolute size doesn't matter.
Absolute size is the key criteria in hitting a target, and this rescale has moved the wrong way on absolute size.

But you're not shooting a semi truck or a sports car. Your example says that YOU changed size, but your targets stayed the same.

That's not the case here, is it?

Using your own example, you, as a 6-foot tall person are shooting at a 4-foot tall person. The difficulty of shooting that same person does not change if you are decreased to 3 feet and your target is decreased to 2 feet. And that's because your relative size is exactly the same. Your absolute scale changed, but your relative scale did not. Though your view of your world changed, your target appears exactly the same as it did before the change.

Now, if you were increased in size (Atlas) while your target was decreased in size (Locust) then yes, your target would be harder to hit, while you would be easier... because your relative size changed. The absolute size is immaterial.

[Mystere]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

The complaint here is... I dunno... kinda silly. By your same argument, most AAA developers that build games in active multiplayer game worlds are treating their games like betas... because all of them do the exact same thing. There is a constant shuffle going on to adjust balance and fix core issues. This is the norm in modern gaming.

The main difference is that those AAA games are more likely feature-complete and as such the developers can then spend the rest of their time just balancing (that and developing new features).

MWO, on the other hand, has a whole load of still missing and broken systems/features. It is still feature-incomplete, functionally in an Alpha state. As such, the problem with this obsession with balancing is that as missing things get added, or broken things get fixed, we force another round of "balancing" that on a zero-sum basis usually nets nothing -- while consuming limited staff, time, and other precious but limited resources probably better spent working on those same still missing and broken systems/features.

TheMadTypist, on 18 June 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

Other developers keep moving forward, building on an existing core, tweaking what doesn't work already and then adding new elements. They don't redesign whole swathes of existing, working content every three months. PGI's behavior wouldn't bother me so damn much if we weren't just treading water. We're going in circles, not making progress.

^^^ This! ^^^

Edited by Mystere, 18 June 2016 - 12:12 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Mavairo, on 18 June 2016 - 12:06 PM, said:

Grasshopper, meet mr Warhammer.

Grasshopper is massively bigger.

Grasshopper...meet TimberWolf.
Grasshopper is massively bigger.

Grasshopper, meet Battlemaster.... same freaking size.

Grasshopper meet Cataphract... Cataphract is a smaller, more compact midget by comparison... inspite of having the same tonnage.

Highlander...meet Battlemaster. Only five tons between them...and you'd think it was 30.

Volume doesn't mean ****. Size is what matters. And a mech that was already over sized, got even freaking bigger. Along with a great many already over sized mechs.

Even if the mechs in this game some how all follow the same volume per tonnage (and I doubt that they do) it doesn't change the fact that their SIZE is all over the place.

Size =/= height.

[Juodas Varnas]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 12:07 PM, said:

But you're not shooting a semi truck or a sports car. Your example says that YOU changed size, but your targets stayed the same.

That's not the case here, is it?

Using your own example, you, as a 6-foot tall person are shooting at a 4-foot tall person. The difficulty of shooting that same person does not change if you are decreased to 3 feet and your target is decreased to 2 feet. And that's because your relative size is exactly the same. Your absolute scale changed, but your relative scale did not. Though your view of your world changed, your target appears exactly the same as it did before the change.

Now, if you were increased in size (Atlas) while your target was decreased in size (Locust) then yes, your target would be harder to hit, while you would be easier... because your relative size changed. The absolute size is immaterial.

Absolute size only matters when comparing mechs to the environment, from my understanding.

[kapusta11]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 June 2016 - 11:26 AM, said:

My verdict is it seems to be pissing off all the "right" people for me to think it has a chance to be successful.

That's all that matter to you? That someone is pissed? Sucks to be you.

[ScarecrowES]

Mystere, on 18 June 2016 - 12:08 PM, said:

The main difference is that those AAA games are more likely feature-complete and as such the developers can then spend the rest of their time just balancing (that and developing new features).

MWO, on the other hand, has a whole load of still missing and broken systems/features. It is still feature-incomplete, functionally in an Alpha state. As such, the problem with this obsession with balancing is that as missing things get added, or broken things get fixed, we force another round of "balancing" that on a zero-sum basis usually nets nothing -- while consuming limited staff, time, and other precious but limited resources probably better spent working on those same still missing and broken systems/features.

As a counterargument... ANY game which adds features over the duration of its existence undergoes the same processes. Destiny, again, being a prime example. In the modern space, there's no such thing as "feature complete upon release."

[TheMadTypist]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 11:59 AM, said:

Erm... you haven't played too many games these days, have you? I can think of literally dozens of games in the modern era that have made HUGE overarching changes to their game after release... for balance and other reasons.

Hell, Destiny alone is a perfect example of a game that is constantly in flux. And there's a game where even the core gameplay mechanics are not safe from change. These days, games that exist wholely in the multiplayer space follow that mold more often than not.

Never played destiny, don't have a console, but from what I hear they made big, overarching changes because there were big, overarching issues. I don't see those here. MWO works. I'd love to see more of it, don't get me wrong, but I don't see a justification for so much expenditure and reconstruction on things that weren't terribly flawed to begin with. And when the overall outcome to hope for is that balance eventually returns to our current level of not-all-that-much-broken, it's a massive source of fatigue to see another big "pass" come through breaking the existing elements without adding much back, in return for a promise that one day, we'll get another fix for the fix.

And yeah, I play a lot of games, but I guess I'm playing ones by different developers than you are.

[ScarecrowES]

Juodas Varnas, on 18 June 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

Absolute size only matters when comparing mechs to the environment, from my understanding.

Yes, exactly. And since we don't shoot at the environment, it's a non-factor in terms of shooting mechanics. Now, where absolute size DOES come into play is in movement mechanics and map design. And since we don't want THOSE to be borked, it's a good thing that absolute scale hasn't changed.

TheMadTypist, on 18 June 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

Never played destiny, don't have a console, but from what I hear they made big, overarching changes because there were big, overarching issues. I don't see those here. MWO works. I'd love to see more of it, don't get me wrong, but I don't see a justification for so much expenditure and reconstruction on things that weren't terribly flawed to begin with. And when the overall outcome to hope for is that balance eventually returns to our current level of not-all-that-much-broken, it's a massive source of fatigue to see another big "pass" come through breaking the existing elements without adding much back, in return for a promise that one day, we'll get another fix for the fix.

And yeah, I play a lot of games, but I guess I'm playing ones by different developers than you are.

I play all kinds of games by all kinds of developers. *shrug* The patterns are the same all across the industry.

I think you may have been the first person I've seen in a long while to argue that MWO is fine "as is." Even the "white knights" are unwilling to make such a claim .