776 replies to this topic

[Jables McBarty]

Bradigus, on 23 June 2016 - 07:46 AM, said:

My overall verdict is that it's bad for most assaults, good for most lights. Most lights did need to be scaled up, but it seems the developers completely forgot to address quirks to compensate. They switched Oxides and Firestarters for Locusts. We are back to square one, a notoriously difficult to hit target that is not only highly mobile, but possesses considerable quirks to make it capable of fighting targets far above it's weight class all on it's own.

If the locust is staying at it's current size, reduce the mobility quirks to simply 10%. As it stands, netcode and server stability make your solid hits bounce all over the place.

Oh, and the Phoenix Hawk is too big fragile for how fragile big it is.

FTFY.

[Brizna]

Imo it's better than it was but it could be better than it is.

That locust is 20% smaller than commando is realistic but from a game balance perspective that makes no sense.

Also volume played too much of a factor, that's why Stalker, Catapults, Novas and all other ovoid/cubic shaped mechs look so small now, while volume is completely realistic what matters when balance is at stake is SURFACE, not VOLUME.

All games need to strike a balance between realism and game play and this rescale was way to much on the side of realism, shoudl have been more mindful of balance.

[QuantumButler]

Brizna, on 23 June 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

Imo it's better than it was but it could be better than it is.

That locust is 20% smaller than commando is realistic but from a game balance perspective that makes no sense.

Also volume played too much of a factor, that's why Stalker, Catapults, Novas and all other ovoid/cubic shaped mechs look so small now, while volume is completely realistic what matters when balance is at stake is SURFACE, not VOLUME.

All games need to strike a balance between realism and game play and this rescale was way to much on the side of realism, shoudl have been more mindful of balance.

100% correct, one of the biggest factors in how fragile a mech feels in MWO is down to their hotboxes, namely how much surface area one can easily hit from one direction, typically the most meaningful direction being front or back.

Even though the VOLUME of say, a blackjack now might overall be smaller than a Catapult, the Catapult has a much smaller profile in practice, whereas especially manwalkers like the Grashopper are basically barn sized in comparison and crumple easily under any sort of fire that the Catapult can survive by virtue of avoiding a good chunk of it simply due to it's profile.

And of course to add insult of injury, some of the mechs that got made much hugher also got not insignificant nerfs to their quirks, while others didn't, seemingly with no rhyme or reason.

Edited by QuantumButler, 23 June 2016 - 11:50 AM.

[xXBagheeraXx]

only thing upsetting me about the patch was the mauler nerfs. everything else i can live with, especially the cat changes.

[Rekkon]

Koniving, on 21 June 2016 - 12:29 AM, said:

There are tanks from World War II without turrets. Very usable. There are tanks in the modern fields of Russia that are extremely viable.

In fact, in game form these tanks are very viable as being turretless typically -- and in reality -- allows for the use of larger cannons which in turn mean bigger shells with stronger armor penetration capabilities. Effectively creating 'tank destroyers'.

Tank destroyers were usable at range, not so much close up. This is fine for real life armor in suitable terrain, not so much for Battletech where engagement distances are short, unit speeds are high relative to engagement distances and unit durability means they can usually survive to close the range.

A big justification for tank destroyers was cost. Turrets are expensive, so it was cheaper to make an AFV without them. Yes, they allowed you to mount a larger weapon, but that mattered more for chassis where the original turret could no longer accommodate an effective cannon, hence projects like converting Panzer IIIs into StuGs. There were fewer tank destroyers built on platforms that did not go obsolete before the end of the war, like the Panzer IV. Overall, the advantages of a full turret generally outweigh the benefits of going tank destroyer, evidenced by the lack of such designs today where nations have the luxury to focus on "most effective" style vehicles rather than being forced by the conditions of total war to crank out as much of anything usable as possible.

[C E Dwyer]

It was o.k, but not really going to change game play much.

This isn't going to balance the game by a long shot.

All this ghost heat, power draw, and god knows what other mechanic's are over complicated.

Simplest way to cure a lot of wat's wrong with TTK, alpha's would be lower the heat thresh hold, won't sure it all but it would help a lot.

[Koniving]

Rekkon, on 23 June 2016 - 12:15 PM, said:

Tank destroyers were usable at range, not so much close up. This is fine for real life armor in suitable terrain, not so much for Battletech where engagement distances are short, unit speeds are high relative to engagement distances and unit durability means they can usually survive to close the range.

A big justification for tank destroyers was cost. Turrets are expensive, so it was cheaper to make an AFV without them. Yes, they allowed you to mount a larger weapon, but that mattered more for chassis where the original turret could no longer accommodate an effective cannon, hence projects like converting Panzer IIIs into StuGs. There were fewer tank destroyers built on platforms that did not go obsolete before the end of the war, like the Panzer IV. Overall, the advantages of a full turret generally outweigh the benefits of going tank destroyer, evidenced by the lack of such designs today where nations have the luxury to focus on "most effective" style vehicles rather than being forced by the conditions of total war to crank out as much of anything usable as possible.

Agreed.

Thing is, in tabletop engagement ranges are short. In Battletech, engagement ranges depended on the pilot. After all, all autocannons could reach out to 2,000 meters. But hitting something "as small and agile as a Battlemech" was considered impractical. Then, despite same ammo types, etc. -- across various brands and models of ACs, such as those created by GM, Armstrong Weaponry, Defiance Industries, Bithinian Ballistics, Sterope Defense Industries, etc.-- the reason that ranges cut for higher classifications of autocannon is actually firing rate. AC/2s are slow, AC/20s are fast. If given the same caliber of ammunition, the AC/20 spits out bullets 10 times faster than an AC/2 and two times and two additional tons the overall weight. (6 tons and 14 tons). Because AC/20s shoot so much faster (4x faster than AC/5s, 2x faster than AC/10s), the AC/20 has horrific range over the other ACs.

Note: Caliber can be high or low in any class of AC. For example a high caliber AC/2 (typically 80-90mm) shoots most of its damage in very few shots while a low caliber (such as the BJ-1's GM Whirlwind/L) is a 30mm AC/2 requiring 10 shots to get the full 2 damage (lore-wise) and according to both the lore, the rules in MaxTech for double firing ACs, and the idea I was churning out in that big post you quoted from, that 30mm AC/2 could fire up to 20 shots at high risk chance for 4 damage. (With the other mentions of splitting damage for weapons in lore that are not front loaded [lasers, ACs] and 1x ratings for all weapons and the lore/maxtech based double fire for all ACs... that damage split isn't so bad and with the max range being 2,000 something meters for almost full-per-shot damage but an accurate long range of 720 meters, where 'snipers' could pull off 1440 meters if skilled and time their shots good as well as compensate for bullet drop. Especially if those sniper-harassers are rewarded with near full damage there. And compared to the lasers given in the example. Very useful. Unlike MWO.

Typically, the mechs that do not have torso twist fulfill one of the following roles:
Locust: Scout.
Jenner: Scout, skirmisher or in one variant's case: Brawler.
Catapult: Fire support.
Nova: Fire support, skirmisher, hunter.

Lack of twist simplifies piloting, making it a bit advantageous for faster mechs as you can focus better on where you are going.

The Jenner couldn't twist, but its "head" is very clearly depicted as being able to rotate as necessary to facilitate use of its stock SRM pack. Note: Standard SRMs do indeed lock as well as fire and forget. It is Dead-Fire Missiles -- a type of SRM and LRM ammo -- that are dumbfired and MRMs. SRMs aren't superb, but they are guided.

The Catapult's case, well it is a walking field artillery. The extrusions on the knees are meant for the mech to brace, as it actually is so canonically small that its best chance for accuracy is to kneel to fire rather than fire while moving. But being so small and lobbing missiles up and over things, it didn't really matter.


The Nova... as in the many other examples I gave in the post you quoted, would have the ability to flip arms if without lower arm actuators while still being able to pivot arms left and right (regardless of torso twist availability). So while a mech with torso twist might have an arm range of 120 and a twist range of 45 to 90 for a combined field range of 210 degrees with blind spots behind it.. The Nova could have an arm range of 120 in the forward arc, flip arms and have a rear arc of 120, for a combined arc of 240 degrees with blind spots on the sides (where it is weakest in terms of enemies being able to hit it anyway).

Thus... both creating unique dynamics for mechs while keeping them viable and adding some character to them.
Agreed though, you wouldn't want to fight up close for long in any of them, but at least in all cases you'd still have left/right range with the design idea I had in mind (Catapults could aim/lock missiles in any visible direction, Locust has turret in CT and pivotable arms that can flip, Nova has flipping pivoting arms, and Jenner has combined aim/lock and pivoting flipping arms.)

Nothing says a mech without a lower arm actuator can't aim left/right, in fact nothing in BT prevents it. It limits other options, though, such as punching, climbing and makes getting up more difficult. So with it being able to aim left/right and be able to flip behind provided you have upper arm and shoulder actuators intact and functional... nothing says lacking a torso twist has to be a crutch.

Edited by Koniving, 23 June 2016 - 01:14 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Koniving, on 23 June 2016 - 11:18 AM, said:

Now that I'm aware of your question... (Quoting something, anything, would make me aware of them faster).

The heatscale for MW3 was "30" for just MW3, if you installed Pirate's Moon (the expansion) it ups to 40 (40 is also what MW2 has) (which is what you have in MWO with No skill tree and 10 SHS. Same lack of skill tree and 10 DHS gives you 50 and with each heatsink it goes up in addition to your cooling, something no other mechwarrior has ever done. Not even MechAssault. And no mechwarrior has had problems to this point; not even Mechwarrior 4 with its 60 threshold.).
Btw, 40 threshold looks like this in MWO + 20% threshold and cooling for a cold map. (Which is actually 50 threshold and 1.25/second cooling).

Heat Sim.

(Two things to note: One that starts very high in heat. Two, the heat scale that PGI had for much of 2012 including melting heatsinks and exploding ammo had come to an end that same patchday with this new overheat system... and three this is using 3x or greater weapon rates. MW3 only used 2 times greater.

Spoiler

And in what I was advocating, I wanted 1x damage rates across multiple shots for lasers, 1x rates with single shots for Gauss and PPCs [meaning one use per 10 seconds], and 2x damage rates across multiple shots [with risk to jam on all] for autocannons [risk much higher for std and LBX over UAC]). So even 1x armor/structure and 1x cooling would be viable with STD or DBL heatsinks without overheating quite like that -- except with PPCs where you should, or with rifle heat since it' d be all in one blow. Btw, missiles would be 1x and mech mortars 1x as well.

I didnt quote anything because the section of the post I woulda quoted was part of a novel, not a post lol.

But yeah, a fixed 40 heat scale would really be better for this game.....the being able to get 60-70 and w/e else, along with heat quirks and all that jazz, it makes our ability to unleash oh unholy hell way to great.

[Koniving]

LordKnightFandragon, on 23 June 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

But yeah, a fixed 40 heat scale would really be better for this game.....the being able to get 60-70 and w/e else, along with heat quirks and all that jazz, it makes our ability to unleash oh unholy hell way to great.

Highest I was able to get before the skill tree nerf was over 130. (With 1 ER PPC and a lot of Clan DHS on an 85 ton mech).
I was barely able to get above 120 with the same ER PPC and that many IS DHS on another 85 ton mech.

So yeah. That'd be a huge cutback in the potential we have.
Otherwise, well we have this. (Note if you count by 10s per PPC... Yeah. Btw 40 threshold, 4 PPCs at once and shutdown except on the coldest maps. 3 ER PPCs would both shut you down and damage you. 3 PPCs would be ok.)

[The Amazing Spider Man]

My verdict on rescale is I quit.

IMO the only time SDR could be considered OP was during introduction with broken hitboxes. After that was fixed SDR became arguably the worst chassis in the game. They are rare to see on the field.

SDR is supposed to use JJ as a weapon. JJ has never worked correctly, which makes this "weapon" a penalty randomly. The benefit to the chassis has never worked properly.

Yet SDR chassis is regularly hit with the nerf bat. Module slot removal, quirk removal, and now resize.

My leave is not because I no longer fit under HPG ramp, but because I'm tired of one of the worst mechs consistently degrading before improving it's trademark advantage. SDR is already the bottom of the barrel, usually becomes worse with each patch, and the universal fixes that could improve the chassis (MG, slingshot/stuck in map) are never discussed. I'd be more inclined to stay if there was communication on these topics.

In short, I'm tired of holding onto my hope, and rescale was the last "fixing something unnecessary" straw for me.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Give a Man with 75kg Bodyweight a Rifle, Ammobags, Helmet, Vest ..for 20kg ,now the Man has 95kg, for PGI Math now the Man is 2,50m?! and have many more Volume
weigt and Volume =Size ?! Nonsense ...seeing a Boing 727 and the Airship Hindenburg

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 23 June 2016 - 08:16 PM.

[topgun505]

Did the Oxide need reigning in? Sure. But doing it this way makes any chance of seeing ANY of the other Jenners on the battlefield completely nil. They should have started with no resize and strip all the buffs on the Oxide and tried that and if that still wasn't enough THEN maybe proceed with the resize. I will miss my JR7-F (sigh).

May have to dust off the LCTs again just to be a pain in the arse.

[Brizna]

The Amazing Spider Man, on 23 June 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

SDR is already the bottom of the barrel, usually becomes worse with each patch, and the universal fixes that could improve the chassis (MG, slingshot/stuck in map) are never discussed. I'd be more inclined to stay if there was communication on these topics.

While I agree that SDR has been at the bottom of the mech ladder for a long time if you look accurately at patch notes there's been a lot of small fixes in map to remove slingshot and stuck places for jumping mechs, there are still places where that happens but it certainly happens much less than it used to.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Brizna, on 23 June 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

Imo it's better than it was but it could be better than it is.

That locust is 20% smaller than commando is realistic but from a game balance perspective that makes no sense.

Also volume played too much of a factor, that's why Stalker, Catapults, Novas and all other ovoid/cubic shaped mechs look so small now, while volume is completely realistic what matters when balance is at stake is SURFACE, not VOLUME.

All games need to strike a balance between realism and game play and this rescale was way to much on the side of realism, shoudl have been more mindful of balance.

Realistic ? a Cube 2m x 2m x2m (Metal,PVC Mix) , and a Cube 2m x 2m x 2m (Aluminium/Plastic Mix)have the same Size with same Volume , with different Weight...a Cube with 1m x 2m x 3m (steel) and a Cube with 2m x 2m x2 m (Stelle) have the same weight , the same Volume not the same size from all sides

A Elevator have a fix Size and Volume , only the Weight ist different with People in

A Mech have a Fix Weight and Size , only the weight is different with different Weapons/Engine/Amor Configurations...

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 24 June 2016 - 02:24 AM.

[Brizna]

In geometry, a cube^[1] is a three-dimensional solid object bounded by six square faces, facets or sides, with three meeting at each vertex.

[Samedi Wretch]

DivineEvil, on 20 June 2016 - 06:54 PM, said:

Absolute scales do not make that much difference, but relative scale does. Also, the relative impact of scale-downs is much, much greater, than scale-ups across the board. Those changes would mostly affect the vulnerability of mechs across long range, and for enlarged mechs it will be negligible. Neither of the changes are going to impact the 1st Tier mechs in any significant degree, but there will be much, much more reason to pick mechs, that will no longer be outrageously oversized.

Making a mech a little bit chunkier would produce just the same effect, as uniformly scaling it a little up, if not worse. Uniform scale expands dimensions, that many players used to neglect. Making components easier to pin-point is a whole different story.

I agree that relative volume is more important than absolute. But, absolute volume still has an effect on TTK, because weapon ranges weren't adjusted to reflect the overall average volume (an absolute measure). Meaning, within effective ranges, targets will appear larger and be easier to hit. Additionally I believe that shape and proportion is very relevant to the success/viability of a mech, and surface to volume ratio is a useful heuristic for analyzing this. A mech with a high surface to volume ratio is likely going to appear a much larger target than a compact rounded (i.e., non-humanoid) target. Another way to state this, is that making a mech rounder, rather than uniformly larger, will increase volume faster than its target profile. The new awesome model is an example of this. When you argue that scale-downs will have a larger impact than scale ups, I wonder if you're considering that on the high end of the spectrum, there's a great deal of cover that will be less effective.

[William Pryde]

People keep bringing up using size to balance 'Mechs. Correct me if I am wrong, but did PGI not say that they would not use a 'Mech's size to balance it? Is that not what quirks are for?

[Bishop Steiner]

William Pryde, on 24 June 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

People keep bringing up using size to balance 'Mechs. Correct me if I am wrong, but did PGI not say that they would not use a 'Mech's size to balance it? Is that not what quirks are for?

It's a concept many have trouble grasping. Apparently mechs are really 2D cardboard cutouts with their front profile always facing the enemy, with no ability to move, twist or turn, and no one ever shoots their side profiles, thus only their static frontal torso profiles are of any significance.

Apparently when you discover the UberPro settings levels and tactics, MWO looks like this:


Because that makes total perfect sense. Really.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 24 June 2016 - 10:37 AM.

[Oberost]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 June 2016 - 10:36 AM, said:

It's a concept many have trouble grasping. Apparently mechs are really 2D cardboard cutouts with their front profile always facing the enemy, with no ability to move, twist or turn, and no one ever shoots their side profiles, thus only their static frontal torso profiles are of any significance.

Apparently when you discover the UberPro settings levels and tactics, MWO looks like this:


Because that makes total perfect sense. Really.

The problem (in my opinion) is that the volumetric approach to the rescale gives the 3 dimensions the same importance (as it should be, BTW), but honestly, in game the top surface (the best example being the King Crab) is barely used (apart of some ocassional LRM rain). How often do you target the top of a mech? And how much this dimension contributes to the surface you are shooting at?

I know that you have to take one scientific approach to something like the scaling of a mech, but some exceptions should be welcome.

[Bishop Steiner]

Oberost, on 24 June 2016 - 11:00 AM, said:

The problem (in my opinion) is that the volumetric approach to the rescale gives the 3 dimensions the same importance (as it should be, BTW), but honestly, in game the top surface (the best example being the King Crab) is barely used (apart of some ocassional LRM rain). How often do you target the top of a mech? And how much this dimension contributes to the surface you are shooting at?

I know that you have to take one scientific approach to something like the scaling of a mech, but some exceptions should be welcome.

problem with exceptions...is soon, in our entitlement generation, EVERYTHING becomes the exception. If the game was better balanced, and LRMs more prominent..would the KGCs profile truly be a benefit?

Yes, I know we don't have that atm, but that shoudl ALWAYS be the goal, and to achieve that, subjective and possibly fluctuating scale is the enemy. (BTW, am I the only guy that snipes from high ground and loves those big fat upper profiles to aim at? Viva la JJs!)