776 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

Let's be honest... it's STILL going to be the Oxide doing it. A minor size increase is not going to change what makes that mech worth piloting over other lights.

"minor"

[Bishop Steiner]

Tarogato, on 18 June 2016 - 02:31 PM, said:

I may or may not have written an essay-length treatise covering my thoughts on the rescale.

In depth, and your bias doesn't override it (we all have bias, so not calling you out) the way some people's agendas are painted in neon colors. I don't agree with all your assessments (CN9s only needed a change for purely aesthetic reasons. It's still one of the absolute tankiest mediums in the game), but it's not a bad summary overall.

You did miss the Archer, which if one was going to make an argument for "performance based scale" really got the shaft. Personally, I don't believe in it, and would rather see it bad, but part of a unilateral scale baseline in hope that it will cause PGI to rethink quirks, and (highly unlikely) a few hardpoint decisions on some chassis (like ALL VNDs seriously needing an extra Missile slot).

I do not believe scale or hitboxes should EVER be used as balancing tools, but always as unbiased and maximized as possible. The less variables to juggle, the better chance that something possibly resembling balance might happen. We had inconsistent scale for 4 years.... and the one thing for sure, is it helped nothing. And trying to scale based off of "perceived performance" is too meta oriented and likely to shift.

Even if it gives us a few months of teething issues, as long as PGI actualyl follows up on it, with quirks and other tweaks, I think it will be for the best, long term. But that is a big if, I admit. Thing is, IMO, if they don't.... we end up broken... nothing realyl changes. Yeah which chassis are most sociable might, but broke as hell balance is broke as hell balance.

If there's any chance of patching up humpty dumpty, for real, this was an essential step.

also, your "Light Mech" section...I agree with steps 4 and 5. Info War is vital IMO to break this TDM stagnation. There needs to be deeper play for it to be a "thinking man's shooter". Without it, even if they wen't with Option1... this game just continues to stagnate.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 18 June 2016 - 03:22 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Mcgral18, on 18 June 2016 - 03:13 PM, said:

"minor"

Yeah... minor. Let's have some perspective on this. In the isolated before/after pic of the Jenner, it looks like a pretty big increase. But we know it can't be over 7%, because that's the biggest increase in size any mech got (the Crab). The Centurion, looks like it got a pretty decent change too, but it only droppped by a little over 1.5%. We also know, at 35 tons, that the actually tonnage increase for the Jenner doesn't amount to squat across the total mech set. If you're in one of those 100-tonners... the Jenner's not going to look much bigger than it is now.

[Clownwarlord]

I LOVE THE RE-SCALE; if you don't can I have your mechs?

[beerandasmoke]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 03:19 PM, said:

Yeah... minor. Let's have some perspective on this. In the isolated before/after pic of the Jenner, it looks like a pretty big increase. But we know it can't be over 7%, because that's the biggest increase in size any mech got (the Crab). The Centurion, looks like it got a pretty decent change too, but it only droppped by a little over 1.5%. We also know, at 35 tons, that the actually tonnage increase for the Jenner doesn't amount to squat across the total mech set. If you're in one of those 100-tonners... the Jenner's not going to look much bigger than it is now.

Most likely the Cheetah will be much more survivable than the oxide now. I mean how easy is it to kill adders and kitfoxes. Granted they dont have the same speed but the meta always hangs by a thread and a nerf can cause players to switch to a more viable mech.

[Mcgral18]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 03:19 PM, said:

Yeah... minor. Let's have some perspective on this. In the isolated before/after pic of the Jenner, it looks like a pretty big increase. But we know it can't be over 7%, because that's the biggest increase in size any mech got (the Crab). The Centurion, looks like it got a pretty decent change too, but it only droppped by a little over 1.5%. We also know, at 35 tons, that the actually tonnage increase for the Jenner doesn't amount to squat across the total mech set. If you're in one of those 100-tonners... the Jenner's not going to look much bigger than it is now.

But it going to take hits much easier, due to being a solid Meter wider (arm to arm, or torso to torso, 7M->8M), along with a Meter longer (6M->7M)

Do numbers make it easier to quantify? Not really, because scale is weird in MWO. Current Atlas is 17.5M (with cockpit at 16M and 0.5M offcentre) Atlas is moving to a touch below 19M

[GrimRiver]

RIP some lights(looking at you jenners/spiders/wolfhounds). lol

But muh atlas-s got structure nerfs and it got a tad bigger.

But with catpult and dragon being smaller now I might ride them.

[ScarecrowES]

Mcgral18, on 18 June 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

But it going to take hits much easier, due to being a solid Meter wider (arm to arm, or torso to torso, 7M->8M), along with a Meter longer (6M->7M)

Do numbers make it easier to quantify? Not really, because scale is weird in MWO. Current Atlas is 17.5M (with cockpit at 16M and 0.5M offcentre) Atlas is moving to a touch below 19M

And note, at 11m tall (at the shoulders, not cockpit), the Jenner still isn't taller than divide between torso and hips on both the Atlas and Kodiak. That mech still doesn't come up to the belly button of the tallest mechs in the game. It's still quite short.

[Mcgral18]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 03:33 PM, said:

And note, at 11m tall (at the shoulders, not cockpit), the Jenner still isn't taller than divide between torso and hips on both the Atlas and Kodiak. That mech still doesn't come up to the belly button of the tallest mechs in the game. It's still quite short.

Short isn't the Jenner issue, Wide is

It's the flying CT, not the Towering Hopper

[TercieI]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 03:19 PM, said:

Yeah... minor. Let's have some perspective on this. In the isolated before/after pic of the Jenner, it looks like a pretty big increase. But we know it can't be over 7%, because that's the biggest increase in size any mech got (the Crab). The Centurion, looks like it got a pretty decent change too, but it only droppped by a little over 1.5%. We also know, at 35 tons, that the actually tonnage increase for the Jenner doesn't amount to squat across the total mech set. If you're in one of those 100-tonners... the Jenner's not going to look much bigger than it is now.

Somewhere in there some piece of what you think we know is the fecal remnant of a male bovine.

[Deathlike]

TercieI, on 18 June 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

Somewhere in there some piece of what you think we know is the fecal remnant of a male bovine.

Crap, you figured it out.

[MrJeffers]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

*sigh*


Doesn't matter what your absolute scale is... to each other, you're exactly the same. Your relative scale is exactly the same. The angle I have to move to hit the head vs the foot... or CT instead of shoulder... is exactly the same no matter how big our absolute scale is. Now, if we're aiming for the tree, absolute scale matters. But we're aiming at each other. If you don't change our relative scale, it doesn't change what sort of target we make to each other.

Unless we change absolute scale so much that it starts to impact weapon ranges, absolute scale has no real impact on shooting mechanics.

Or to translate in terms of "pixels..." If you're the Atlas, the Centurion is going to take up just as many pixels on your screen, regardless of how many pixels the tree takes up (and vice versa).

Lol yeah this just is proves how wrong you are. The Atlas and the cent are the same size, so nothing changes. The tree is what changes so the area that counts on that:


Scale up the Atlas at the same size as the tree and you'll see that the area of aim for effective hits is still going to be larger with the larger tree than with the smaller tree.
Same as if you sale up the cent and the atlas at the same rate, that area of aim triangle will *always* favor the smaller target, regardless of relative size. If you double the size of both the area of that triangle is going to roughly double and the origin angle at the Atlas will grow as the target does.


Geometry. It's hard.
EDIT: nevermind doing the re=scale, I did it. Pay attention to the angle of the triangle at the atlas.
Rescale compare with cent and atlas at 120% scale in Red, previous scale in green. It's obviously a larger target area on the re-scale even when they are re-scaled at the same rate.

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

You forgot the "FACTS AND MATH" disclaimer

Too bad it's neither

Edited by MrJeffers, 18 June 2016 - 04:07 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 03:19 PM, said:

Yeah... minor. Let's have some perspective on this. In the isolated before/after pic of the Jenner, it looks like a pretty big increase. But we know it can't be over 7%, because that's the biggest increase in size any mech got (the Crab). The Centurion, looks like it got a pretty decent change too, but it only droppped by a little over 1.5%. We also know, at 35 tons, that the actually tonnage increase for the Jenner doesn't amount to squat across the total mech set. If you're in one of those 100-tonners... the Jenner's not going to look much bigger than it is now.

A shame relative sizing has absolutely zero bearing on how easy it is to hit a target component...

[Cy Mitchell]

Steve Pryde, on 17 June 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:

And before people complain about locust now is too small. It's just a 20t mech. A Jenner's (or any other 35t mech) tonnage is nearly twice of it. Of course a Jenner is way bigger than a Locust.

But...but it wasn't like that before!

[wanderer]

Yeonne Greene, on 18 June 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

A shame relative sizing has absolutely zero bearing on how easy it is to hit a target component...

Indeed. A bigger target is just that. A bigger target, easier to hit.

It also means missiles in general get a marginal bump up, as given that spread didn't change, a larger target will absorb more missile fire and effective clustering on a given target will be better. Ditto LB-X for the same reason.

Edited by wanderer, 18 June 2016 - 04:12 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

MrJeffers, on 18 June 2016 - 03:50 PM, said:

Lol yeah this just is proves how wrong you are. The Atlas and the cent are the same size, so nothing changes. The tree is what changes so the area that counts on that:

Scale up the Atlas at the same size as the tree and you'll see that the area of aim for effective hits is still going to be larger with the larger tree than with the smaller tree.
Same as if you sale up the cent and the atlas at the same rate, that area of aim triangle will *always* favor the smaller target, regardless of relative size. If you double the size of both the area of that triangle is going to roughly double and the origin angle at the Atlas will grow as the target does.


Geometry. It's hard.
EDIT: nevermind doing the re=scale, I did it. Pay attention to the angle of the triangle at the atlas.
Rescale compare with cent and atlas at 120% scale in Red, previous scale in green. It's obviously a larger target area on the re-scale even when they are re-scaled at the same rate.

Too bad it's neither

WTF are you talking about. How are you going to post the exact same picture, twice, NOT changing the relative size of the two mechs and ONLY changing the color from red to green, and saying somehow something else has changed.

The mechs are still the same size relative to each other. Their absolute size changed, but their relative size stayed the same. Everything that matters to how you have to hit the other mech stayed the same.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 18 June 2016 - 04:18 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 04:15 PM, said:

WTF are you talking about. How are you going to post the exact same picture, twice, NOT changing the relative size of the two mechs and ONLY changing the color from red to green, and saying somehow something else has changed.

The mechs are still the same size relative to each other. Their absolute size changed, but their relative size stayed the same. Everything that matters to how you have to hit the other mech stayed the same.

It didn't, because relative sizing has nothing to do with anything that matters to how you have to hit the other 'Mech. If an already big-and-easy-to-hit 'Mech gets larger and a previously smaller-and-harder-to-hit 'Mech gets bigger such that the two are the same size relative to each other, then the former 'Mech didn't lose out on anything while the latter one did, now becoming big-and-easy-to-hit. Now factor in less hit-points.

The ease of hitting a target is on an absolute scale, and does not give one single **** about how big you are relative to me.

[ScarecrowES]

Yeonne Greene, on 18 June 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

It didn't, because relative sizing has nothing to do with anything that matters to how you have to hit the other 'Mech. If an already big-and-easy-to-hit 'Mech gets larger and a previously smaller-and-harder-to-hit 'Mech gets bigger such that the two are the same size relative to each other, then the former 'Mech didn't lose out on anything while the latter one did, now becoming big-and-easy-to-hit. Now factor in less hit-points.

The ease of hitting a target is on an absolute scale, and does not give one single **** about how big you are relative to me.

The ease of hitting another mech ONLY predicates on relative scale... how exactly does the size of the building next to the mech make any difference to how you target the mech?

If you take 2 mechs, and set it up so the smaller mech takes up a given number of pixels on the screen of the larger mech - the larger of the two mechs will have to aim down x number of degrees to target the head of the smaller mech. It will have to aim down further y number of degrees to hit the feet. It doesn't matter how large or small you set their absolute scale to the world, if their relative size stays the same, you will ALWAYS have to aim down the same x number of degrees to hit the head, and y degrees to hit the feet as long as the smaller mech still takes up the same number of pixels.

Because you didn't change their relative size, nothing else that matters to how you aim at and target the other mech has changed. It will still take the same number of degrees to move across different parts of the mech, you'll still translate those degrees in the same amount of time. The size of the enemy hitboxes will still take up exactly the same number of pixels on your screen. NOTHING has changed.

[LordKnightFandragon]

All the mechs should be much smaller anyway. This rescale didnt do as much as I thought. I was thinking the rescale would see mechs changed to the extent of the Catapult.....I see the actual changes were negligible for the most part.

[Impyrium]

Yeonne Greene, on 18 June 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

It didn't, because relative sizing has nothing to do with anything that matters to how you have to hit the other 'Mech. If an already big-and-easy-to-hit 'Mech gets larger and a previously smaller-and-harder-to-hit 'Mech gets bigger such that the two are the same size relative to each other, then the former 'Mech didn't lose out on anything while the latter one did, now becoming big-and-easy-to-hit. Now factor in less hit-points.

The ease of hitting a target is on an absolute scale, and does not give one single **** about how big you are relative to me.

I've seen this argument pop up a little now, and it's certainly an interesting point to consider.

However, I'm not entirely sold on whether it's the case yet. Especially considering a game does not render a viewpoint the same way your eyes perceive the real world.