776 replies to this topic

[Kargush]

Locusts are getting smaller?

Eff yes!

[MrJeffers]

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.

Wow I can't believe you can't recognize this.

Absolute size IS the criteria that matters.

Quote

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.

Yes it does because the shrink means less area that counts as a hit, regardless of scale. A shrink from 4 feet to 2 feet means 50% less area to hit, it doesn't matter what the size of the source is, your accuracy doesn't go up because you got smaller. The area that counts as a hit is what matters and it got cut in half so you have to be more accurate to hit the target.

We see this in game already - why is the awesome so bad? Because it's a barn door with huge area. If you decrease the area you decrease the area hit boxes which make it harder to hit. Relative scale *doesn't matter* A locust can hit the Awesome just as easy as an Atlas can because the Awesome profile is so big their scale relative to the Awesome has zero effect.

I can't believe something so fundamental is so hard for people to comprehend.

Edited by MrJeffers, 18 June 2016 - 12:20 PM.

[Mystere]

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

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."

Where are we today -- years after "release" -- with regard to PGI's initial "Four Pillars" for MWO?

Edited by Mystere, 18 June 2016 - 12:17 PM.

[Mavairo]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

Size =/= height.

GH, and WH, and Cataphract are roughly the same widths under original scale they were identical in torso width. Actually no... the GH"s torsos are actually WIDER than the Cataphracts and WHs.

Dramatically different in height. So... where is the volume for the Cataphract to make it up with? The arms? the legs? lol.
The Warhammer picked up some height..but not width.

[ScarecrowES]

MrJeffers, on 18 June 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

Wow I can't believe you can't recognize this.

Absolute size IS the criteria that matters.

Yes it does because the shrink means less area that counts as a hit, regardless of scale. A shrink from 4 feet to 2 feet means 50% less area to hit, it doesn't matter what the size of the source is, your accuracy doesn't go up because you got smaller. The area that counts as a hit is what matters and it got cut in half so you have to be more accurate to hit the target.

We see this in game already - why is the awesome so bad? Because it's a barn door with huge area. If you decrease the area you decrease the area hit boxes which make it harder to hit. A locust can hit the Awesome just as easy as an Atlas can because the Awesome profile is so big.

I can't believe something so fundamental is so hard for people to comprehend.

Well, largely because you're outright wrong.

For example... you say accuracy doesn't change due to a decrease in relative scale. You're absolutely right... your inherent ability to aim doesn't change. However, what DOES change, since you changed your absolute scale, is the total distance moved per degree of aim. THAT ratio change is the same as the relative ratio change between you and the opposing mech, which is to say it hasn't.

So as you would expect, if you've shrunk in size by half, your aim distance per degree also changed by half. Which corresponds neatly with the change in size of your target, yes?

Sorry, but as I said before... your arguments aren't in keeping with reality.

[MrJeffers]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 12:23 PM, said:

Well, largely because you're outright wrong.

For example... you say accuracy doesn't change due to a decrease in relative scale. You're absolutely right... your inherent ability to aim doesn't change. However, what DOES change, since you changed your absolute scale, is the total distance moved per degree of aim. THAT ratio change is the same as the relative ratio change between you and the opposing mech, which is to say it hasn't.

So as you would expect, if you've shrunk in size by half, your aim distance per degree also changed by half. Which corresponds neatly with the change in size of your target, yes?

Sorry, but as I said before... your arguments aren't in keeping with reality.

Well, it's you that is 100% wrong and disconnected from reality. So I'll just drop out now and wait for the patch to prove you wrong.

[TheMadTypist]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 12:14 PM, said:

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.



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 .

I say if the game was really as fundamentally broken or flawed as people seem to claim, the forums would be dead and the queues would be empty. I actually do play a game or two like that, where despite a captive nostalga-base the game managed to drive away the players. Here, neither is the case, so we've all got to be hanging around for some reason. However inexperienced or unwise PGI's big names might be, they've stumbled into something that looks a lot like relative success.

[ScarecrowES]

MrJeffers, on 18 June 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

Well, it's you that is 100% wrong and disconnected from reality. So I'll just drop out now and wait for the patch to prove you wrong.

You may need a review of basic middle-school geometry. Just saying.

[MrJeffers]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 12:26 PM, said:

You may need a review of basic middle-school geometry. Just saying.

There are X pixels that count as a hit. If X is a larger number it's easier to hit than if X is a smaller number. Just saying that you need to review what area means.

[ScarecrowES]

TheMadTypist, on 18 June 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

I say if the game was really as fundamentally broken or flawed as people seem to claim, the forums would be dead and the queues would be empty. I actually do play a game or two like that, where despite a captive nostalga-base the game managed to drive away the players. Here, neither is the case, so we've all got to be hanging around for some reason. However inexperienced or unwise PGI's big names might be, they've stumbled into something that looks a lot like relative success.

I would never say it's nearly as bad as some of the forummites claim. PGI has not done a terrible job. A good job? Not quite. Any worse than most developers? No. I can still remember the great M16 debacle from CoD: MW. The burst-fire capability of that weapon was clearly the death of the CoD series, according to the forums.

[Bishop Steiner]

kapusta11, on 18 June 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

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

Yup, that's exactly what was being said. Kudos to your contextual comprehension.

[NoiseCrypt]

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.

The volume seems to be spot on. Grashopper is a bit taller when seen from the side profile, and the Warhammer have almost twice as thick legs when seen from the front.... you can do the rest yourself as an exercise

[ScarecrowES]

MrJeffers, on 18 June 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

There are X pixels that count as a hit. If X is a larger number it's easier to hit than if X is a smaller number. Just saying that you need to review what area means.

If size is decreased equally for both a target and a shooter, then the target appears to be the same size from the shooter's perspective. Your ability to aim has not changed, and the movement distance to input has changed at the same ratio as the absolute scale change of both targets.

So not only is your target exactly the same size in your perspective, but the manner in which you bring your crosshair to that target also hasn't changed in your perspective. Though both have clearly changed in an absolute manner.

What's so hard about this... it's basic geometry.

[Bishop Steiner]

NoiseCrypt, on 18 June 2016 - 12:30 PM, said:

The volume seems to be spot on. Grashopper is a bit taller when seen from the side profile, and the Warhammer have almost twice as thick legs when seen from the front.... you can do the rest yourself as an exercise

when people cling to gross exaggeration, I just tend to tune out. Even to people I may respect in other venues. Tuned out 1453 in my aiming topic, Mischief in my KDK3 one, Gyrok almost anytime clan balance is mentioned and Darian around Jenners. When emotion get's involved, ain't no point trying to reason.

[L3mming2]

i like the resize, there will ofc need to be quite some requirking done to rebalance it, but atleast now there is less of a "optimal weight for a class" thing going on (read the heavyest weight for a class ussualy had a advantage before cause it was in general quite small for its weight..)

[Heinreich]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

If size is decreased equally for both a target and a shooter, then the target appears to be the same size from the shooter's perspective. Your ability to aim has not changed, and the movement distance to input has changed at the same ratio as the absolute scale change of both targets.

So not only is your target exactly the same size in your perspective, but the manner in which you bring your crosshair to that target also hasn't changed in your perspective. Though both have clearly changed in an absolute manner.

What's so hard about this... it's basic geometry.

I don't know if you're deliberately sidestepping his point to prove whatever point you are getting at, but basic geometry dictates bigger targets are easier to hit. It doesn't matter how big the shooter is. A bigger target is always easier to hit. A 5-foot guy will will find shooting a 6 foot guy easier than shooting at another 5 foot guy. If you magically change that 5 foot guy into a 6 foot guy, he will still find it easier to shoot a 6 foot guy than a 5 foot guy.

[ScarecrowES]

Heinreich, on 18 June 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

I don't know if you're deliberately sidestepping his point to prove whatever point you are getting at, but basic geometry dictates bigger targets are easier to hit. It doesn't matter how big the shooter is. A bigger target is always easier to hit. A 5-foot guy will will find shooting a 6 foot guy easier than shooting at another 5 foot guy. If you magically change that 5 foot guy into a 6 foot guy, he will still find it easier to shoot a 6 foot guy than a 5 foot guy.

Agreed... but you've missed the basis of the argument. I'm countering the argument that changing the absolute scale of two mechs while keeping their relative scaling the same somehow makes the targetting each other different. It doesn't.

It's easier to hit a 6-foot that a 5-foot person regardless of the size of the shooter, yes. But 2 shooters of the same size are not going to find it more or less difficult to shoot each other regardless of how big or small they are. It's exactly as easy for 2 5-foot shooters to hit each other as it is for 2 6-foot shooters to hit each other.

But yes... as you've pointed out, changing the size of mechs relative to each other definitely changes how easy they are to target - and that's also been a point I've made. But that's not what the current argument is about.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 18 June 2016 - 12:50 PM.

[MrJeffers]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

If size is decreased equally for both a target and a shooter, then the target appears to be the same size from the shooter's perspective. Your ability to aim has not changed, and the movement distance to input has changed at the same ratio as the absolute scale change of both targets.

So not only is your target exactly the same size in your perspective, but the manner in which you bring your crosshair to that target also hasn't changed in your perspective. Though both have clearly changed in an absolute manner.

What's so hard about this... it's basic geometry.

I don't' know what you're on, but basic geometry says that if A is 10 cubic meters in area, it's always bigger than B that is 9 cubic meters in area. It doesn't matter if B changes to 4 cubic meters, it's still bigger. And if you scale them both at 80% the new A at 8 cubic meters is still smaller than the old A. Always. Basic geometry. Likewise if you scale B and scale A at 120% it's now still bigger than the old A. The number of pixels/area is what matters. What's so hard about that? More area = more valid hit area = easier to hit.

OK, this time I am really done, because you just don't get it.

Just make sure to pick up that Locust pack.

Edited by MrJeffers, 18 June 2016 - 01:04 PM.

[Heinreich]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

Agreed... but you've missed the basis of the argument. I'm countering the argument that changing the absolute scale of two mechs while keeping their relative scaling the same somehow makes the targetting each other different. It doesn't.

It's easier to hit a 6-foot that a 5-foot person regardless of the size of the shooter, yes. But 2 shooters of the same size are not going to find it more or less difficult to shoot each other regardless of how big or small they are. It's exactly as easy for 2 5-foot shooters to hit each other as it is for 2 6-foot shooters to hit each other.

But yes... as you've pointed out, changing the size of mechs relative to each other definitely changes how easy they are to target - and that's also been a point I've made. But that's not what the current argument is about.

Not trying to derail your argument with the other guy, just trying to understand your point

Quote

[color=#959595]It's easier to hit a 6-foot that a 5-foot person regardless of the size of the shooter, yes. But 2 shooters of the same size are not going to find it more or less difficult to shoot each other regardless of how big or small they are. It's exactly as easy for 2 5-foot shooters to hit each other as it is for 2 6-foot shooters to hit each other.[/color]

I believe you are approaching this from a mechanical point of view. The mechanics of two five foot guys aiming at each other's center mass would be the same mechanics as two six foot guys aiming at each other's center mass. Does this sum it up? Please correct me if I got it wrong.

Maybe that's true in a static situation, but the bigger surface area comes into play in a dynamic situation. Assuming we keep aiming accuracy the same, two 5-footers in a running gun battle will miss each other more than two 6-footers in a similar running gun battle.
Simply put, the additional surface area from the increased size would mean near-hits would now register a actual hits as there is more meat surface to hit. Their movement mechanics may be the same relative to each other, but a shot that missed by 5cm in a 5foot-vs-5foot battle will now hit in a 6foot-vs-6foot battle because the bigger target would have occupied that 5cm of space.

Now if you're saying that the 5cm miss in a 5foot-vs-5foot battle will also translate to a 5cm miss (or some other proportional measurement) in a 6foot-vs-6foot battle, well I really don't know what to say to that as that doesn't make sense to me that it would happen like that (remember, we are keeping skill the same here).

[Ade the Rare]

The rescale doesn't matter. It's nice to see variation. It's good that they're striving towards some sort of idea of perfection. It'll mix things up a bit.

And when a big, goofy grasshopper blocks out the sun, we have nightvision.