776 replies to this topic

[Aetes Nakatomi]

Do you understand how a three dimensional model works? You know that one is a giant egg on legs and the other is a humanoid shape?

That means one will be very short and fat with a massive side profile and the other tall and wide with a very svelte side profile.

[kapusta11]

At least they both have the same volume now, a major issue was solved.

[Mcgral18]

Well, I guess it won't make much of a difference for the Griff VS Hammy


Almost the same currently, anyhow

[Ade the Rare]

I'm thinking from the side the catapult is much wider than the phawk, so perhaps that picture is a little deceptive being only face-on...

Calm down.

[Mcgral18]

Yellonet, on 19 June 2016 - 01:04 AM, said:

Yes, volume is a very difficult concept to comprehend I guess.

It really is, so much so that volume !=weight
Different materials, different densities, different volumes (for the same weights)



Personally, I'd take balance over realism when dealing with Shooty Stompy Robots, else you get this 55 tonner VS a 70 tonner
(current scale)

[NoiseCrypt]

Can i have your stuff ?♡

Mcgral18, on 19 June 2016 - 01:19 AM, said:

It really is, so much so that volume !=weight
Different materials, different densities, different volumes (for the same weights)



Personally, I'd take balance over realism when dealing with Shooty Stompy Robots, else you get this 55 tonner VS a 70 tonner
(current scale)

And speed, and agility, and torso twist range, etc.... 2D people should stick to 2D games

Edited by NoiseCrypt, 19 June 2016 - 01:24 AM.

[Aetes Nakatomi]

I am getting tired of the constant cry baby threads. Got my P-hawks dropping on Tuesday and this picture is as silly to me as someone showing a front picture of a King Crab next to a front picture of a Jagermech saying 'OMG Jagermech is bigger than a King Crab!! OMG PGI PLZ FIX!!!!'.

[Weeny Machine]

Stefka Kerensky, on 19 June 2016 - 12:43 AM, said:

Bigger size with 20 tons less.
Mind: I don't give a $h1t if catalupt is a chicken leg, bla bla bla.
Thinking to balance through rescaling is simply r3t4rted mindset.
Every mech should be nearly equally effective, right?
Take a look at Catapult quirks and PXH ones.

I don't give a $h1t if pgi will do a quirk pass.... in MONTHS!!!
Aren0t they able to figure out that a lot of mechs will do $h1t?
Do they really need MONTHS of data to figure it out?

AKA, once again, after 4 years, they still know nothing about its own game.

So, yes.... RIP PGI, RIP.

Geez...the Phoenix Hawk looks the size of the Battlemaster.

Seeing this I think the "across the board" re-sizing was not a good idea. After that a new massive quirk cycle will start again for sure.

[Mcgral18]

NoiseCrypt, on 19 June 2016 - 01:23 AM, said:

And speed, and agility, and torso twist range, etc.... 2D people should stick to 2D games

What other angles do you shoot robots at?

Agility is only different due to quirks (otherwise, minimally superior for the 55 tonner)
Agility=speed, only quirks change that

Edited by Mcgral18, 19 June 2016 - 01:27 AM.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

El Bandito, on 19 June 2016 - 12:55 AM, said:

It wasn't the Phawk's scale that made me speechless. It was its MG RoF quirks.

At least it wasn't flamer range..

Edited by LOADED, 19 June 2016 - 02:19 AM.

[Mcgral18]

LOADED, on 19 June 2016 - 01:28 AM, said:

At least is wasn't flamer range..

Those would be more useful...

[NoiseCrypt]

Mcgral18, on 19 June 2016 - 01:26 AM, said:

What other angles do you shoot robots at?

Agility is only different due to quirks (otherwise, minimally superior for the 55 tonner)
Agility=speed, only quirks change that

All of them except directly from below or above... but if facetanking is all you do, then i can see why you are having a hard time...

[Aetes Nakatomi]

I tend to shoot at robots from the side and back as well as the front. Do you just March directly at all enemies in a strait line? I also tend to steer away from enemies if losing a fight as well as turning my torso to spread damage.

Question, do you turn your torso 90 degrees when in a Catapult, Marauder or Stalker when trying to spread damage? If not, why not? (ps I already know the answer)

[Mcgral18]

NoiseCrypt, on 19 June 2016 - 01:30 AM, said:

All of them except directly from below or above... but if facetanking is all you do, then i can see why you are having a hard time...

lel

[L3mming2]

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).

in your pick the distance between the uper 2 is way longer than between the botem 2... so as u prove u need to be a load closer in the botem pic to get the same angles that still hit...

[Juodas Varnas]

Aetes Nakatomi, on 19 June 2016 - 01:32 AM, said:

Question, do you turn your torso 90 degrees when in a Catapult, Marauder or Stalker when trying to spread damage? If not, why not? (ps I already know the answer)

I do that all the time.

But then i die, because i run an XL engine and i'm a dumb sh*t

[Alistair Winter]

Yeah, the PXH is going to be more of a challenge than I originally prepared for, Yeah, it's a smaller target when seen from the side, but:

• It has low weapon mounts, which means you have to expose a lot more of your mech to fire. Also, all weapons are in those arms (2 exceptions).
  
• It has a narrow profile from the side, but generally... I tend to engage my enemy by facing them. The narrow side profile only helps me briefly if I'm torso twisting.
  
• If you torso twist, those massive arms are going to absorb damage. Which means you lose your arms. Which means you lose your weapons. What's the point in surviving without weapons? In other words, you won't torso twist very much, and the narrow profile is not an advantage at all.

The only real advantage that I can see is the narrow legs. Because when you jump a lot (which is the one good thing about this mech) people tend to hit your legs. And especially ballistics and PPCs tend to go between narrow legs.



But overall, between the lack of hardpoints and the bad quirks and the huge profile, this is going to be MWO Nightmare mode. Better fill your belts with health potions.

EDIT: The 3d modelling team did a good job with the Phoenix Hawk, but what a terrible decision they made with the Roc's missile launchers. That looks awful. We're talking Centurion-missile launchers level awful.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 19 June 2016 - 02:06 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

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.

Yeah. So... lights are huge now. And methinks we're stuck with them. We have a few options here:

• revert the changes so that lights are again survivable and fun and don't need extraordinary quirks to be viable. Probably not going to happen.
  
• quirk that heck out of them so that people actually want to play them.
  
• do nothing now, hope that future heatscale changes will have a drastic enough effect on the meta that killing fast mechs will be harder.
  
• be patient and wait for the rescale to hit the live servers that we can experience it ourselves. No kneejerk reactions. Be calm and have an open mind. Maybe it won't actually be that bad (... I seriously doubt that)
  
• Praise be Infotech. No, honestly. I mean... give lights a LOT of infotech prowess. Allow them to hold targets longer, give them a smaller radar signature so that they are much more sneaky, allow them to acquire locks faster, allow them to lock targets from longer range. See u/kanajashi's video on the topic for more details. All of these attributes apply to the "scout" role of mechs. Some mediums could also fit this role and receive these infotech bonuses (Cicada, Dragonfly, Fenris...)

Reddit is for nerds, so I'll answer here:

1- No thanks. I'm happy with the bigger 35 tonners.
2- Quirks? Sure, they'll need some quirks. Not ridiculous levels of quirks. I don't think that is the answer.
3- Probably won't be a solution, but you never know with so many factors involved.
4- Out of the question.
5- This is good, but PGI needs to understand that Infotech for light mechs is all about making them significantly harder to detect. Instead, PGI used Infotech to make the Firestarter blind as a bat, for example, to compensate for having 8xSPL.

I'll go with 2, 5 and the secret answer:

6- PGI needs to reduce agility and agility for all 40+ ton mechs in the game. The big problem is heavies and assaults with huge engines that are far too nimble right now. So the medium mechs need a slight mobility nerf, the heavy mechs need a major mobility nerf and the assaults need a significant mobility nerf (a major one in the case of assaults with big engines).

Simply put, I don't think engine rating should have such a huge effect on turn rate and other variables associated with agility. This is where I put balancing over realism. When 55-80 ton mechs are super agile, the advantages of speed for light mechs and firepower for assault mechs becomes less relevant. By reducing the agility of the 55-80 tonners significantly, you're helping light mechs.

So yeah. They need to do some major global nerfs and there will be QQ from the "light mechs are OP" crowd.

[NoiseCrypt]

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2016 - 02:41 AM, said:

Reddit is for nerds, so I'll answer here:

1- No thanks. I'm happy with the bigger 35 tonners.
2- Quirks? Sure, they'll need some quirks. Not ridiculous levels of quirks. I don't think that is the answer.
3- Probably won't be a solution, but you never know with so many factors involved.
4- Out of the question.
5- This is good, but PGI needs to understand that Infotech for light mechs is all about making them significantly harder to detect. Instead, PGI used Infotech to make the Firestarter blind as a bat, for example, to compensate for having 8xSPL.

I'll go with 2, 5 and the secret answer:

6- PGI needs to reduce agility and agility for all 40+ ton mechs in the game. The big problem is heavies and assaults with huge engines that are far too nimble right now. So the medium mechs need a slight mobility nerf, the heavy mechs need a major mobility nerf and the assaults need a significant mobility nerf (a major one in the case of assaults with big engines).

Simply put, I don't think engine rating should have such a huge effect on turn rate and other variables associated with agility. This is where I put balancing over realism. When 55-80 ton mechs are super agile, the advantages of speed for light mechs and firepower for assault mechs becomes less relevant. By reducing the agility of the 55-80 tonners significantly, you're helping light mechs.

So yeah. They need to do some major global nerfs and there will be QQ from the "light mechs are OP" crowd.

I couldn't agree more. If the lights have to much trouble after the rescale, then it will be because of to agile heavies and assaults.

[Juodas Varnas]

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2016 - 02:04 AM, said:

EDIT: The 3d modelling team did a good job with the Phoenix Hawk, but what a terrible decision they made with the Roc's missile launchers. That looks awful. We're talking Centurion-missile launchers level awful.

Not the first time PGI ruins absolutely beautiful models with absolutely garbage looking "dynamic" weapon geometry.