776 replies to this topic

[Belacose]

Johnny Z, on 19 June 2016 - 04:26 AM, said:

Good point, besides once that Phoenix Hawk loses both its arms and a leg it wont look larger than the 20 ton heavier Catapult.

Found this comment so amusing I thought about saying I spewed coffee all over my keyboard, but that would have been a lie.

[Weeny Machine]

Frechdachs, on 18 June 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:

So the Oxide got a lil bigger and now y'all think you're safe. No worries, I'll be there to show you how wrong you are, 16 missiles at a time. That said, I like Locusts and Catapults, so I'm very happy indeed.

You forget that movement quirks get also strongly reduced PLUS its movement archtype went up from "tiny" to "small". It will drive like a truck

[Kroete]

Xetelian, on 18 June 2016 - 09:43 PM, said:

Scale for balance is why the AWS is obviously so bad.

It is consistent to a point, it is unbiased to a point and it is NOT fair.

The CPLT scale per volume is not FAIR when you consider that it is now the size of a 55 ton mech at 65 tons
The Nova scale is not FAIR when you compare it to a HBK


Size is very important to balance, it matters if things are drastically out of their ranges.

Using size to balance is exactly why the LCT is so damn small. It deserves to be small because it can carry the LEAST amount of weapons out of ALL the mechs in the game.


The AWS is HUGE still, Wide as a king crab and 20 tons lighter.

The STK is 85 tons and was as wide as a KGC too

This is better than it was before but not FAIR.

Some things need to be small to be any good. A SDR needs to be tiny because all of its variants are low on firepower.

The relationship between size and balance is always going to be there, no matter how much you want it to say it's fair it isn't. There are huge BIAS issues with how small or big certain mechs are.

Why is a 55 ton SHD and GRF the size a WHM?

Why is this fair? Why is this Balanced? Why is this unbiased?

Let us play with lego ...
... do you want to build some mechs together?

Here we have the hbk:
4 wide, 3 deep, 4 high
that 48 pieces

Now lets build a nova:
4 wide, 4 deep, 3 high
What, again 48 pieces?

Isnt that unfair?

No its not, because we have a 3d game and you cant judge it with 2d comparsions.

Edited by Kroete, 19 June 2016 - 06:07 AM.

[Mystere]

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

Thinking to balance through rescaling is simply r3t4rted mindset.

It was allegedly not directly about balancing.

[Coolant]

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.

Getting around language filter is a no-no...reported

[Aetes Nakatomi]

HBS is not taking the TT combat system 1 to 1 at all... Go look at their forum to see the rage and babyish QQ about this already. HBS have always said their system will keep the 'feel' of BT while making an interesting and engaging PC game (to paraphrase).

[Mystere]

KinLuu, on 19 June 2016 - 12:53 AM, said:

Compact Mech Designs, best Mech Designs.

Skinny mechs, like the Hopper and the Shawk might get seriously hurt by this rescaling. This nerf should be compensated by quirks. Now the monthly patching cycle might be a disadvantage, as we are stuck with our Catapult and Timber Wolf overlords for at least a month (or more, who knows?).

Quirks, quirks, and more quirks. Almost everybody is now addicted to quirks.

[Variant1]

solution: make the catapult bigger
it looks like a medium it should look like a heavy

[Trauglodyte]

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.

This is only the front angle. Yes, most of the time you're killing people that are facing you, blah blah blah. But, the Catapult has a lot more volume to be hit than the PH. The PH is, more often than not, going to be played like a Light which means that it being skinny is going to be a blessing. Now, all of that being written, I'm still shocked that the Catapult shrank as much as it did. Yes, I know that it has chicken legs which means that it should be more squat and that lends to a visual bias that it is a lot smaller in volume. In reality, we know that the Catapult is a lot like the King Crab in that so much of its volume is mostly up top and to the side.

Everything will be ok but it sure does look scary, thus far.

[Bishop Steiner]

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.

Speechless would be preferable to actually disseminating inaccurate information. I am hoping, NOT intentionally.

From the Patch Notes:
"Just in case, please note that these silhouettes are captured using an orthographic camera, whereas the Re-Scale comparison images in the above links are taken with the standard MechLab perspective camera. As a result of that difference, scales may appear slightly different if comparing 'Mechs between the two images"



An overlay using their Orthographic camera comparison

100% debunks the OP, and pretty much every similar one I have seen.

I'm sorry to call you out, but I'm "speechless" at the Trump-like levels people seem to want to go on this, when "the truth is out there" for everyone.

[Bishop Steiner]

I almost feel bad doing this, but at the end of the day, I am seeing some horribly misleading posts, many by people I genuinely like and respect.

The Mechlab Camera does NOT show mechs to scale. This has been known and stated by PGI for a very long time. Yet people (and myself included before I knew that) post images from them as scale "gospel".

This isn't helped by PGI using them also at times (honestly while Alex put a huge amount of work into the patch notes, which I for one, appreciate the heck out of, the inclusion of the Mechlab comparos seem to have caused more issues on the forums than good.)

I do not feel inclined to take every possible comparo (the Warhammer to 55 tonners is another laugher that I probably will add, though, when I get a chance), I'm going to take one that is being used heavily to "prove the rescale is bad".....

and then debunk it.



From the Patch Notes:
"Just in case, please note that these silhouettes are captured using an orthographic camera, whereas the Re-Scale comparison images in the above links are taken with the standard MechLab perspective camera. As a result of that difference, scales may appear slightly different if comparing 'Mechs between the two images"



An overlay using their Orthographic camera comparison

100% debunks the OP, and pretty much every similar one I have seen.

Even just comparing the raw side by sides of the Orthos sillhouettes and the Mech Lab pic, the discrepancy is pretty apparent.

Add into the fact that we are dealing with 3D assets, which have depth, and focusing only on the frontal image is totally misleading (IDK about you, but I try not to stare at the other guy the whole match)

I'm sorry to call you guys out, but I'm "speechless" at the Trump-like levels people seem to want to go on this, when "the truth is out there" for everyone.

Constructive criticism is fine. Concerns are understandable. But let's at least TRY to use the info that PGI put out for everyone to see to be accurate, at least, please?

[Trauglodyte]

The one thing, Bish, that I will say is that the top volume doesn't really matter in MW:O. So, this image essentially shows that the Phoenix Hawk kind of got hosed in a way. I'm probably not wording this correctly. The point is, the volume from the front and the side make it seem like the PH is closer to the Catapult than it should be. It is only when you look at it from the top that you see all of the mass that is missing. But, mass from the top doesn't mean anything because we're not driving LAMs and we don't have aerospace fighters doing attack runs on mechs. This is the only area where I think anyone can gripe and it makes sense to be upset about that. The Cat should be squat but, in the world in which we play, it should be close to where it was than it currently is because, as I said, that top portion doesn't mean much.

[Mister Blastman]

To be fair...

a. Catapult torso volume is pretty big considering the external surface area
b. Catapult legs were bent significantly to give a greater impression of size reduction when truth be told, isn't even close to what it standing there makes it seem like

[Bishop Steiner]

Trauglodyte, on 19 June 2016 - 06:58 AM, said:

The one thing, Bish, that I will say is that the top volume doesn't really matter in MW:O. So, this image essentially shows that the Phoenix Hawk kind of got hosed in a way. I'm probably not wording this correctly. The point is, the volume from the front and the side make it seem like the PH is closer to the Catapult than it should be. It is only when you look at it from the top that you see all of the mass that is missing. But, mass from the top doesn't mean anything because we're not driving LAMs and we don't have aerospace fighters doing attack runs on mechs. This is the only area where I think anyone can gripe and it makes sense to be upset about that. The Cat should be squat but, in the world in which we play, it should be close to where it was than it currently is because, as I said, that top portion doesn't mean much.

it does, because it's there. We are 3D models. Also, while not the Meta and maybe not a concern for Comp Play...go ask any King Crab pilot how little that top profile matters when LRMs start raining.

One can't scale stuff in 2D in a 3D game bro. Sorry.

[Equalizer]

What I don't understand is why every now and then people talk about tanking in mediums on these forums. It doesn't usually end well, regardless of mech profile. In my experience, you either play mechs lighter than 50-60 tons as a skirmisher or some sort of poke, or don't get to live very long - simple as that.

Mech "tankiness" usually only plays a role in organized group pushes and even then nobody in their right mind ever primaries a medium, unless it is stupid enough to run point for the assaults and heavies. It is basically a redundant stat in QP, which in a nutshell comes down to how effectively you trade, regardless of what you pilot.

As for the lights getting a bit larger, I think it is a good thing because they won't be able to pull off the crazy stunts they are capable of now. It shouldn't in any way diminish their combat effectiveness if you pick your fights carefully (which all good light pilots do anyway). I pilot mostly lights and fast mediums and don't think the re-scale will have any noticeable impact on my performance in those.

As for the heavies and assaults that got bigger - it should be barely noticeable in-game as they are very easy to hit even in their current state.

[Afuldan McKronik]

Its the price a mech pays for humanoid vs aircraft torso, straight legs vs chicken walker legs, and skinny humanoid arms vs boxes on swivels.

I really don't understand what is so hard to grasp. Although the Marauder looks like it rescaled into more of its high leggy strut. Hopefully it will loose its King Crab waddle at some point.

[Felbombling]

1. What does it matter if the same volume measurements are being applied to every chassis in the game... it should all come out in the wash, no?

2. Bishop, could you please do the same thing with the Locust and the Atlas, overlapped? I'd love to see what an extra 80 tons looks like, according to the PGI math.

3. To the OP... Mechs as represented in game have three dimensions. Just a heads up.

[Trauglodyte]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2016 - 06:59 AM, said:

it does, because it's there. We are 3D models. Also, while not the Meta and maybe not a concern for Comp Play...go ask any King Crab pilot how little that top profile matters when LRMs start raining.

One can't scale stuff in 2D in a 3D game bro. Sorry.

I get it and I'm not complaining about it. I'm simply stating that the bulk of the Cat's volume is really from the top down and that is an area that doesn't really come into play in MW:O. We play a 3D game in really a 2D environment. For Humanoid mechs, getting popped from an attacker that has an elevation gain on you is nothing. Being a Cicada driver, or a chicken walker, that volume hurts a lot more often than I'd like to say. The question really comes into how often, in MW:O, is an elevation gain prominent? From the maps that I can think of, the only ones that matter are Canyon Network, when you're up close, and maybe, MAYBE, Grim Plexus. On every other map, there isn't enough variations in topography to make it a concern. Given that, the Cat has a bit of a benefit being "smaller".

See what I mean? It isn't a big deal because the Cat is as much a barn from the side as the Awesome is from the front. And, it'll die just the same as it did before.

[Astrocanis]

I think it's interesting that the same people who are complaining about relative sizes of humanoid mechs vis a vis chicken walkers are the ones who complained/will complain that weapon points are too low. I'm not a PGI fan, but they need a little elbow room on some of this stuff.

As for "graphics quality", why don't you just back off a little. Unless you are supreme art / devs who can, with a twinkle in their eyes and a little pixie dust make things "better just by looking at them."

Good grief this is a petulant crowd.

[Felbombling]

Hey there Bishop... thanks for this. I asked in the other thread for this... an Atlas vs. Locust overlay so that we can see the 80 ton difference. That would be fantabo, thanks.

Edited by StaggerCheck, 19 June 2016 - 07:14 AM.