776 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

LordKnightFandragon, on 18 June 2016 - 04:37 PM, said:

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.

As expected. We've known for a long time that the Catapult and Nova were the largest outliers. Only a handful of mechs were between 3-10% out of scale, and only a few more were at 3% or less out of scale. Quite a few mechs were on-scale.

The total absolute scale of mechs didn't change.

[Bluefalcon13]

I'm face palming now. I don't know what your green and red triangles are saying.

Let's say this: mech a is 12m tall, mech b is 5m tall. If we keep the proportions the same, and shrink them by 50% they are proportionally the same size towards each other. The tree is just bigger. Guess what, we are NOT the tree nor are we shooting at the tree. We are mech a shooting at mech b. All that matters is our perforations towards each other. Why is that difficult to understand? We as pilots, will see large trees, and normal mechs, as out perspective has changed with the shrink. Therefore, the world (the map) becomes much larger, while we feel like we have stayed the same size. It's one thing to say the scaling was a bad idea because xyz, it's another to say they should've taken a different baseline unit. It only changes the map's scaling. Not the mechs themselves.

I'll go back to the Apple example. I shrink myself and an apple to a scale of 5cm per meter. The apple and myself are still the same size relative to each other. There is no change between us until we are put into another frame of reference. IE the world is big and myself and the apple are tiny. I can still pickup the apple and eat it like I normally would if we were not shrunk.

Changing the scaling density of the mechs is exactly like this. If I put an atlas and a Jenner on top an infinite plane in R3 space, then shrink them by the same scale, they are still the same size from the perspective of each other.

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 04:34 PM, said:

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.

If I tell you to take a rifle and shoot a target, from 300 meters, that is only 5 cm wide and shoot another one that is 20 cm wide, you have a higher probability of a hit on the latter than the former. The relative size is 1:4. Now, if the smaller target is now 20 cm and the larger one is 80 cm - note that it's still 1:4 - then the smaller one is now dramatically easier to hit.

Now, your next argument would be that the 80 cm target is also easier to hit. However, you are not accounting for skill. There is a certain point where the skill of the shooter makes targets above X size trivial to hit. If the level of skill possessed requires targets to be 5 cm or lower to be difficult, then the only target that "lost out" was the smaller one; the larger one was always easy to hit.

This has been an issue in every discussion where we've talked about scale. An Atlas is a barn door. Taking sides off is trivial for me and I would wager most players who aren't totally hopeless cases. A Centurion is actually a bit harder. If the Atlas gets bigger and the Centurion is now the size of the old Atlas to remain proportional, the Centurion becomes as easy to remove components off of as the Atlas in terms of required precision, and actually easier when you account for the lower amount of registered damage it can withstand. The only way these squishy 'Mechs survive is by having agility (fast torso twisting, good run speed, good turn speed) in combination with sizing (and hit-box size ratios) that facilitates the use of agility to spread the damage around. If the size changes and the agility doesn't scale with it, then you have a net loss. And even then, there's only so much you can do with agility and some of these 'Mechs won't really feel like 'Mechs if we let them twist any faster. We can add more hit-points, but really...where do you draw the line? At some points it's just more effective to let the 'Mech stay smaller.

I mean, this angle is why the Locust has always been bad. It's too big for how fast it moves and how much armor it has, being the size of a Jenner currently. It is way too easy to hit for people at T2 and T1 levels and it doesn't hit hard enough itself to make its fragility a worthwhile consideration. Now that it is getting super tiny, it might be worth something at the high-end.

[MrJeffers]

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.

Look at the picture again. The top in red is 120% bigger than the bottom in green - your original. And the area in the red is visibly larger as are the mechs. You're blind if you can't see that, but put it in your favorite paint program and see. Their relative sizes didn't change at all, their absolute sizes did and that is what matters.

You are literally arguing that angle "A" (at the atlas) doesn't have to change when side "C" (the height of the cent) changes. That's just mathmatically wrong, which is what renders your argument wrong.

[ScarecrowES]

Yeonne Greene, on 18 June 2016 - 04:54 PM, said:

If I tell you to take a rifle and shoot a target, from 300 meters, that is only 5 cm wide and shoot another one that is 20 cm wide, you have a higher probability of a hit on the latter than the former. The relative size is 1:4. Now, if the smaller target is now 20 cm and the larger one is 80 cm - note that it's still 1:4 - then the smaller one is now dramatically easier to hit.

Now, your next argument would be that the 80 cm target is also easier to hit. However, you are not accounting for skill. There is a certain point where the skill of the shooter makes targets above X size trivial to hit. If the level of skill possessed requires targets to be 5 cm or lower to be difficult, then the only target that "lost out" was the smaller one; the larger one was always easy to hit.

This has been an issue in every discussion where we've talked about scale. An Atlas is a barn door. Taking sides off is trivial for me and I would wager most players who aren't totally hopeless cases. A Centurion is actually a bit harder. If the Atlas gets bigger and the Centurion is now the size of the old Atlas to remain proportional, the Centurion becomes as easy to remove components off of as the Atlas in terms of required precision, and actually easier when you account for the lower amount of registered damage it can withstand. The only way these squishy 'Mechs survive is by having agility (fast torso twisting, good run speed, good turn speed) in combination with sizing (and hit-box size ratios) that facilitates the use of agility to spread the damage around. If the size changes and the agility doesn't scale with it, then you have a net loss. And even then, there's only so much you can do with agility and some of these 'Mechs won't really feel like 'Mechs if we let them twist any faster. We can add more hit-points, but really...where do you draw the line? At some points it's just more effective to let the 'Mech stay smaller.

I mean, this angle is why the Locust has always been bad. It's too big for how fast it moves and how much armor it has, being the size of a Jenner currently. It is way too easy to hit for people at T2 and T1 levels and it doesn't hit hard enough itself to make its fragility a worthwhile consideration. Now that it is getting super tiny, it might be worth something at the high-end.

Yeonne Greene, on 18 June 2016 - 04:54 PM, said:

If I tell you to take a rifle and shoot a target, from 300 meters, that is only 5 cm wide and shoot another one that is 20 cm wide, you have a higher probability of a hit on the latter than the former. The relative size is 1:4. Now, if the smaller target is now 20 cm and the larger one is 80 cm - note that it's still 1:4 - then the smaller one is now dramatically easier to hit.

Accepted.

However, in THIS discussion, we're not talking about the perspective of two items as viewed from a 3rd completely independent viewpoint which doesn't change relative to the other items.

We're talking about the view point from either of two items which change interdependently.

For the sake of your example, using my previous comparison picture to illustrate your point... if you're the tree, and both mechs are enlarged, both mechs are easier to hit. That's your argument. And that's a point conceded. This is absolutely the case.

When you enlarge the two targets in your example, you're changing their relative scale to the shooter. The targets are larger, but the shooter is the same size. The absolute scale has not changed. By the shooter's perspective, no other things having changed, the targets are simply larger. But, from the perspective of the two targets, the opposing target hasn't changed sizes... the world has merely shrunk a little, including the independent 3rd party (the shooter, or the tree).

But noone in this argument is taking the perspective of the tree. We're in either of the two mechs, or in your example, the targets. And from the each of the targets' perspectives, the opposing target is exactly the same size as it was before.

[MrJeffers]

Bluefalcon13, on 18 June 2016 - 04:50 PM, said:

I'm face palming now. I don't know what your green and red triangles are saying.

Let's say this: mech a is 12m tall, mech b is 5m tall. If we keep the proportions the same, and shrink them by 50% they are proportionally the same size towards each other. The tree is just bigger. Guess what, we are NOT the tree nor are we shooting at the tree. We are mech a shooting at mech b. All that matters is our perforations towards each other. Why is that difficult to understand? We as pilots, will see large trees, and normal mechs, as out perspective has changed with the shrink. Therefore, the world (the map) becomes much larger, while we feel like we have stayed the same size. It's one thing to say the scaling was a bad idea because xyz, it's another to say they should've taken a different baseline unit. It only changes the map's scaling. Not the mechs themselves.

I'll go back to the Apple example. I shrink myself and an apple to a scale of 5cm per meter. The apple and myself are still the same size relative to each other. There is no change between us until we are put into another frame of reference. IE the world is big and myself and the apple are tiny. I can still pickup the apple and eat it like I normally would if we were not shrunk.

Changing the scaling density of the mechs is exactly like this. If I put an atlas and a Jenner on top an infinite plane in R3 space, then shrink them by the same scale, they are still the same size from the perspective of each other.

The area of the red triangles is what matters. The larger the area the wider the range of aim that will score a hit, more specifically the angle from the source (atlas) is larger when the target grows, regardless of the size of the atlas. The larger the angle the wider field of fire that will score a hit.

I can't believe how much people are over thinking this.

Which which has more area to hit, a Wolfhound or an Atlas? Why? Size, right?
That doesn't change with a re-scale, if a mech gets smaller than it is now it's harder to hit because it's smaller. Likewise if it gets bigger it's easier to hit because it's bigger. Your position and scale have zero effect on that.

Edited by MrJeffers, 18 June 2016 - 05:09 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

MrJeffers, on 18 June 2016 - 05:01 PM, said:

Look at the picture again. The top in red is 120% bigger than the bottom in green - your original. And the area in the red is visibly larger as are the mechs. You're blind if you can't see that, but put it in your favorite paint program and see. Their relative sizes didn't change at all, their absolute sizes did and that is what matters.

You are literally arguing that angle "A" (at the atlas) doesn't have to change when side "C" (the height of the cent) changes. That's just mathmatically wrong, which is what renders your argument wrong.

If the appearance of the mech doesn't change (ie filling the same number of pixels on the screen), then angle "A" will not have changed regardless of the absolute scale of the mechs. Their relative scale is the same. And this is mathematically right, as the pictures show. You haven't changed the triangle - and the triangle is your shooting perspective.

[Bluefalcon13]

The area of the triangles are just half distance and the relative heights. Nothing more, nothing less. They have no effect on where you can hit the other mech. The relative height does.

Now, if only one mech is scaled smaller, then yes, it becomes harder to hit. You didn't ask for that. You asked for the base unit of scaling to change across the board. This means that everything changes in relation to each other. Therefore, there really is no change (other than the world getting 'bigger', which doesn't matter... atleast in the context of shooting the other mech).

[Impyrium]

Yeonne Greene, on 18 June 2016 - 04:54 PM, said:

If I tell you to take a rifle and shoot a target, from 300 meters, that is only 5 cm wide and shoot another one that is 20 cm wide, you have a higher probability of a hit on the latter than the former. The relative size is 1:4. Now, if the smaller target is now 20 cm and the larger one is 80 cm - note that it's still 1:4 - then the smaller one is now dramatically easier to hit.

There's a small flaw in your argument though, and this is the point I was trying to make above.

Your perspective in a video game is not the same as your real life eyeballs. I'm not knowledgeable enough about it to go technical, but I can say that real life sight is entirely based around your own scale. A 3D viewpoint does not take into account scale because it's from a single point. I think.

Your example thus is not accurate to the game, unless you also scale your 'self' and whichever firearm you're using down with the targets.

In which case, the ease of hitting each doesn't change.

[MrJeffers]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:

If the appearance of the mech doesn't change (ie filling the same number of pixels on the screen), then angle "A" will not have changed regardless of the absolute scale of the mechs. Their relative scale is the same. And this is mathematically right, as the pictures show. You haven't changed the triangle - and the triangle is your shooting perspective.

Lol

Quote

You are literally arguing that angle "A" (at the atlas) doesn't have to change when side "C" (the height of the cent) changes. That's just mathematically wrong, which is what renders your argument wrong.

Dude, do the *real* effing math then if the image isnt enough for you.
Pythagorean Theorem plus some angle calculators will prove it.

[JC Daxion]

beerandasmoke, on 18 June 2016 - 03:02 PM, said:

Lol all the pilots celebrating that 35 ton IS lights are getting resized.

I'm not cheering it, i just don't think it is anywhere near as bad as people are saying..

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 05:08 PM, said:

Accepted.

However, in THIS discussion, we're not talking about the perspective of two items as viewed from a 3rd completely independent viewpoint which doesn't change relative to the other items.

We're talking about the view point from either of two items which change interdependently.

It doesn't matter. The game world is on a fixed scale as a whole and the weapons have the same level of reliable precision they have always had. The 'Mechs have gotten bigger, and they will actually look bigger to me, the pilot inside the 'Mech, who actually has remained static in size. More importantly, my aim has not gotten wobblier in proportion to my 'Mech's size; the same distance I move my mouse now will result in the same distance traveled as it always has on a given 'Mech. A 'Mech's size in this game has never impacted the movement scale of the crosshair.

So, to your example, the 'Mech is not the shooter here, my aiming reticle is. It has the same size and displacement variance that it has always had, and that's the problem. If I had a tendency to spread damage off of a Jenner CT at speed before because my wobbliness is X mm radius, and the new size gives me 2X mm extra margin on that CT, I'm going to kill that Jenner dead because now his CT is so big that my error is smaller than the component.

[JC Daxion]

GrimRiver, on 18 June 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

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

The spider is a very small increase in size besides its still the best mover in the game

[ScarecrowES]

MrJeffers, on 18 June 2016 - 05:14 PM, said:

Lol


Dude, do the *real* effing math then if the image isnt enough for you.
Pythagorean Theorem plus some angle calculators will prove it.

Mmmhmm... You're assuming a set distance between mechs, yeah? There's your issue. You cannot assume a set distance between mechs because that's not how the game is be played. Double the absolute scale of mechs, and players will back their distance up by the same, if for no greater reason than aiming and traverse speed is restricted by degrees, not distance.

Besides, if we're looking at - and again, certain members of the community are ADAMANT about this - the pixels a mech takes up on your screen... if you set distance so that a given mech takes up the same amount of pixels before and after an absolute scale adjustment, then all math as I've shown it holds true.

Thus, the only case were it DOESN"T hold true is if you make a massive change in absolute scale such that weapon range and other aiming factors come into play. But that's a pretty extreme change, yeah? Nothing even remotely like a 1.5% change in volume.

[MrJeffers]

Bluefalcon13, on 18 June 2016 - 05:13 PM, said:

The area of the triangles are just half distance and the relative heights. Nothing more, nothing less. They have no effect on where you can hit the other mech. The relative height does.

Now, if only one mech is scaled smaller, then yes, it becomes harder to hit. You didn't ask for that. You asked for the base unit of scaling to change across the board. This means that everything changes in relation to each other. Therefore, there really is no change (other than the world getting 'bigger', which doesn't matter... atleast in the context of shooting the other mech).

Even if they are both scaled the same, the angle on the larger scale mechs changes, it has to.

From the patch notes the Cent is 14 meters high.
We'll say the atlas is firing from 100 meters away.
A^2 +B^2 = C^2 so the third leg of the triangle is 100.98

That puts the angle of fire from the atlas at a 7.97 degree spread that will hit the cent.

Scale everything up 20%
Cent is now 16.8 meters high
Atlas is still firing from 100 meters away
A^2 +B^2 = C^2 so the third leg of the triangle is 101.4

Which puts the angle of fire from the atlas at a 9.5 degree spread that will hit the cent. So in that case, at a 100 meter range it's about a 1.5 degree increase of angle that will score a hit.

That's what the triangles in my previous post show, not those exact figures but that relative change.

[ScarecrowES]

Yeonne Greene, on 18 June 2016 - 05:21 PM, said:

It doesn't matter. The game world is on a fixed scale as a whole and the weapons have the same level of reliable precision they have always had. The 'Mechs have gotten bigger, and they will actually look bigger to me, the pilot inside the 'Mech, who actually has remained static in size. More importantly, my aim has not gotten wobblier in proportion to my 'Mech's size; the same distance I move my mouse now will result in the same distance traveled as it always has on a given 'Mech. A 'Mech's size in this game has never impacted the movement scale of the crosshair.

So, to your example, the 'Mech is not the shooter here, my aiming reticle is. It has the same size and displacement variance that it has always had, and that's the problem. If I had a tendency to spread damage off of a Jenner CT at speed before because my wobbliness is X mm radius, and the new size gives me 2X mm extra margin on that CT, I'm going to kill that Jenner dead because now his CT is so big that my error is smaller than the component.

Your perspective as the pilot is not independent of the mech. You know that, right? You're not an actual person sitting in an actual cockpit. You're a camera taped to the front of a mech. Your perspective is the perspective of the mech.

[MrJeffers]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 05:24 PM, said:

Mmmhmm... You're assuming a set distance between mechs, yeah? There's your issue. You cannot assume a set distance between mechs because that's not how the game is be played. Double the absolute scale of mechs, and players will back their distance up by the same, if for no greater reason than aiming and traverse speed is restricted by degrees, not distance.

Besides, if we're looking at - and again, certain members of the community are ADAMANT about this - the pixels a mech takes up on your screen... if you set distance so that a given mech takes up the same amount of pixels before and after an absolute scale adjustment, then all math as I've shown it holds true.

Thus, the only case were it DOESN"T hold true is if you make a massive change in absolute scale such that weapon range and other aiming factors come into play. But that's a pretty extreme change, yeah? Nothing even remotely like a 1.5% change in volume.

yes, I am using a fixed distance to do the math. It holds true at any distance, a bigger target is *always* bigger than a smaller target at the same range.

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 05:27 PM, said:

Your perspective as the pilot is not independent of the mech. You know that, right? You're not an actual person sitting in an actual cockpit. You're a camera taped to the front of a mech. Your perspective is the perspective of the mech.

And yet my crosshairs in a Locust are no smaller against an Atlas at 100 m than they are when I'm in a Marauder aiming at the same Atlas from the same distance. That's what you should have taken away from that, because that's the problem.

E: Because relative to the actual trees and actual buildings in the game, whatever 'Mech in question did, in fact, get larger, and we are going to notice and we will be able to take advantage of it. My ACs and SRMs and MGs are all going to have the same precision/spread they have always had and everything else will be larger.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 18 June 2016 - 05:40 PM.

[MrJeffers]

ScarecrowES, on 18 June 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:

If the appearance of the mech doesn't change (ie filling the same number of pixels on the screen), then angle "A" will not have changed regardless of the absolute scale of the mechs. Their relative scale is the same. And this is mathematically right, as the pictures show. You haven't changed the triangle - and the triangle is your shooting perspective.

If the appearance of the mech didn't change it didn't get re-scaled. End of story.

[LT. HARDCASE]

Yeonne Greene, on 18 June 2016 - 04:54 PM, said:

If I tell you to take a rifle and shoot a target, from 300 meters, that is only 5 cm wide and shoot another one that is 20 cm wide, you have a higher probability of a hit on the latter than the former. The relative size is 1:4. Now, if the smaller target is now 20 cm and the larger one is 80 cm - note that it's still 1:4 - then the smaller one is now dramatically easier to hit.

Now, your next argument would be that the 80 cm target is also easier to hit. However, you are not accounting for skill. There is a certain point where the skill of the shooter makes targets above X size trivial to hit. If the level of skill possessed requires targets to be 5 cm or lower to be difficult, then the only target that "lost out" was the smaller one; the larger one was always easy to hit.

This has been an issue in every discussion where we've talked about scale. An Atlas is a barn door. Taking sides off is trivial for me and I would wager most players who aren't totally hopeless cases. A Centurion is actually a bit harder. If the Atlas gets bigger and the Centurion is now the size of the old Atlas to remain proportional, the Centurion becomes as easy to remove components off of as the Atlas in terms of required precision, and actually easier when you account for the lower amount of registered damage it can withstand. The only way these squishy 'Mechs survive is by having agility (fast torso twisting, good run speed, good turn speed) in combination with sizing (and hit-box size ratios) that facilitates the use of agility to spread the damage around. If the size changes and the agility doesn't scale with it, then you have a net loss. And even then, there's only so much you can do with agility and some of these 'Mechs won't really feel like 'Mechs if we let them twist any faster. We can add more hit-points, but really...where do you draw the line? At some points it's just more effective to let the 'Mech stay smaller.

I mean, this angle is why the Locust has always been bad. It's too big for how fast it moves and how much armor it has, being the size of a Jenner currently. It is way too easy to hit for people at T2 and T1 levels and it doesn't hit hard enough itself to make its fragility a worthwhile consideration. Now that it is getting super tiny, it might be worth something at the high-end.

Yeonne Greene, on 18 June 2016 - 05:21 PM, said:

It doesn't matter. The game world is on a fixed scale as a whole and the weapons have the same level of reliable precision they have always had. The 'Mechs have gotten bigger, and they will actually look bigger to me, the pilot inside the 'Mech, who actually has remained static in size. More importantly, my aim has not gotten wobblier in proportion to my 'Mech's size; the same distance I move my mouse now will result in the same distance traveled as it always has on a given 'Mech. A 'Mech's size in this game has never impacted the movement scale of the crosshair.

So, to your example, the 'Mech is not the shooter here, my aiming reticle is. It has the same size and displacement variance that it has always had, and that's the problem. If I had a tendency to spread damage off of a Jenner CT at speed before because my wobbliness is X mm radius, and the new size gives me 2X mm extra margin on that CT, I'm going to kill that Jenner dead because now his CT is so big that my error is smaller than the component.

Great posts.