776 replies to this topic

[Scout Derek]

Bishop's misleading thread is to be merged, standby...

[Kroete]

Yeonne Greene, on 19 June 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

Now, the shape changes from instant to instant, but it will always be 2D and it will always be a combination of the width, depth, and height of the 'Mech, with a massive emphasis on the first two since height rarely factors into a fight unless the hard-points are low.

It's not biased. It's how this **** works.

But high is allways one of the 2 dimensions you talk about.
The emphasis is high, becauses its the constant that doesnt change if you go around an object,
high only doesnt matter, if you look on it from above.

Edited by Kroete, 19 June 2016 - 12:07 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Kroete, on 19 June 2016 - 12:06 PM, said:

But high is allways one of the 2 dimensions you talk about.
The emphasis is high, becauses its the constant that doesnt change if you go around an object,
high only doesnt matter, if you look on it from above.

'Mechs don't move up and down quickly enough for the height of a 'Mech to matter much in determining its tanking ability, and higher or lower on a side torso is still side torso. The only time height matters is when the cockpit is up high and the weapons are closer to the crotch.

[Scout Derek]

Stefka's thread is to be merged as well.

A word of quick advice; Don't point fingers and don't argue endlessly and don't bash PGI. It ain't going to make you any better and it ain't going to get you nowhere, it's senseless and stupidity like a few days back (not me, something else everyone knows of).

Yeonne Greene, on 19 June 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

Was this better? Asking because I need to know. Quickly.

[Alistair Winter]

Good to see the threads merged, so all the old posts didn't go down the memory hole.

[Kroete]

Yeonne Greene, on 19 June 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

'Mechs don't move up and down quickly enough for the height of a 'Mech to matter much in determining its tanking ability, and higher or lower on a side torso is still side torso. The only time height matters is when the cockpit is up high and the weapons are closer to the crotch.

Front profile of a mech: Width x High
Side profile of a mech: Depth x High

Maybe you should look for our lego playgroup?
To bad that procurator buried it somewhere in this topic, here is the first post http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5244741
but the last was more about high and width and depth. I cant find it in the merged thread ...
But there you would see with a simple example about a lego aws and a lego kc that high matters as much as width and depth.

Edit:
Found the other posts, not where i expected them ...
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5245075
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5245250

Edit2:
Yeonne the last link shows why high matters.
A simple example about profiles in 3d in this game (with lego).

Edited by Kroete, 19 June 2016 - 12:35 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

As he will be adding things from other threads.. hold one.

I do not believe the desire to create a scaling process was wrong, it is the current approach with volume. First, a player's view point in the game, sizing up another object in the game does not change, only their viewpoint based on the height of the mech, be it a Locust or an Atlas. PGI at the beginning had stated that MWO lights were made smaller than "lore" for game play reasons, making them harder to hit while causing issues with hit reg, even when HSR was added.

And in the Battletech universe, it is would be counter-intuitive to create a mech larger than it needed to be to equip the components to make it a battlemech. And not just the skeleton itself but the myomer bundles that move the hands, arms, legs of a mech, the engine and its components, the gyro (1-4 tons), cockpit (3-tons) the associated heatsinks, weapons and their components, other equipment then the armor plating.

Now, bear with me. PGI volumetric approach, imho, should have had an additional modifier for each weight as it stepped up through the ladder, reducing the size of most mechs, some more than others. The volume of 5 Locusts should not equal 1 Atlas. The bulk of a mech's weight and size is consumed by the engine (shielding and upto default 10 heatsinks), gyro (1-4 tons, engine rating/100 and rounded up) and cockpit (3-tons).

Essentially, if PGI had a formula where, without any additional modifiers, input 20-tons, spit out the volume amount, compared to said Locust, then in the same formula, input 100-tons and ran with those results, that, imho would have been the wrong approach to developing a mech scaling formula. I would also would have liked the formula to utilize slightly different modifiers between the IS mechs and the Clan mechs. Not too much but a hair difference. Example Jenner II/HBII/etc would be a hair smaller than their IS cousins.

I think that is why many are put off, more pixels, easier to hit without hit reg becoming too big an issue. But, what do I really know /shrugs. It has always been about having playable and enjoyable game. That is one of the reasons PGI said they had doubled the armor pts/ton (and accidentally doubled the structural pts/ton too )

In the long run, people will get used to the things as they are, the real issue though is will be the lessening of the faith that PGI really wants this game to continue, to succeed. And for it to succeed, PGI needs the players' trust and faith so said players will continue to want to put actual moneys on the line. That is where PGI is dropping the ball. PGI should seriously review their formula, their scaling methods. It is too late to make any changes now, with the patch locked in for this coming up Tuesday.

I would say something more (removed names), but does PGI have anyone who plays the Devil's advocate card at all? /shrugs. I have been on the side that I do not want MWO to revert back to MS, because I do not really see anyone else actually picking it up and running with it.

Frak, off to finish the BBQ

[Y E O N N E]

Kroete, on 19 June 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

Front profile of a mech: Width x High
Side profile of a mech: Depth x High

Maybe you should look for our lego playgroup?
To bad that procurator buried it somewhere in this topic, here is the first post http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5244741
but the last was more about high and width and depth. I cant find it in the merged thread ...
But there you would see with a simple example about a lego aws and a lego kc that high matters as much as width and depth.

Edit:
Found the other posts, not where i expected them ...
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5245075
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5245250

Edit2:
Yeonne the last link shows why high matters.
A simple example about profiles in 3d in this game (with lego).

With all due respect, it doesn't show anything.

Height doesn't affect how damage can be tanked. Your 'Mech components are arranged horizontally, not vertically. The majority of your motion is also on the horizontal plane, not the vertical. As such the hugely overwhelming majority of damage is spread across the horizontal, from arm to torso to arm.

It doesn't matter that the front and side views include height because I'm going to pick a single height and stick to it, only worrying about maintaining my crosshair on that one spot as you twist around, and even with JJs you aren't moving enough on the vertical plane for it to make a difference in how hard it is to zap on that axis. On a humanoid 'Mech, the arms always shield the sides (the Archer is not humanoid, before anybody says it, neither is the Dragon or the Blackjack), so height is irrelevant. On a bullet 'Mech, the torso is always protruding past the arms, so height is again irrelevant. The only time height affects your damage received is when your cockpit and hard-points are located sub-optimally and a lot of your 'Mech must expose before you are able to fire.

[EgoSlayer]

I said it before the merge deleted it, but I'll say it again:

TTK is going down for the majority of mechs, and the re-quirkening to bring them back is going to be epic. I don't know how long it will take PGI to figure out the first part, but I'm sure it will take even longer to implement the second part.

[DivineEvil]

Totally positive about the rescale in general. Can't wait to see how it will influence the balance and mech choices. It's a major set of changes to get many mechs back in the light, but not as major to significantly affect the gameplay as a whole.

Still, a bit confused why these changes has bypassed the Trebuchet. It's a bit forgotten mech due to it's dartboard geometry. I wish PGI could do something about it's torso profile ratios and shape.

[Ultimax]

Andi Nagasia, on 17 June 2016 - 05:58 PM, said:

people have to remember this wasnt a Change that to Balance the Classes,
this was a Scaling Change to Correct the Scaling of All Mechs,

i think though we all wish all things got smaller, it will be better for the game,
as all mechs are now the Correct Size, and Scaled Properly,

What is the value of correcting scale if it destroys mech balance?

You people saying these things really aren't thinking it through.


Seriously, what is the value of having "correct scale" if many mechs are just outright worse than they were before?

EgoSlayer, on 19 June 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

I said it before the merge deleted it, but I'll say it again:

TTK is going down for the majority of mechs, and the re-quirkening to bring them back is going to be epic. I don't know how long it will take PGI to figure out the first part, but I'm sure it will take even longer to implement the second part.

It'll be funny to see them try to justify things like +100% structure across the board because of this travesty.

Or maybe we need to triple armor, and then nerf all weapons!

Edited by Ultimax, 19 June 2016 - 01:46 PM.

[Rock Roller]

Most of the arguments have some points in their favor. Some I think will have to playout in the actual post release environment to get a feel for. I would have thought anything that may change the balance of the current tier list would have had well thought out quirk reviews. I would have also thought that some of the underperforming mechs would have at least received parity quirk passes.

As a driver looking for some love for my Victor. Scale I get, lack of the same level of structure quirks I don't understand. It doesn't have much going on that I see as in unbalance Alphas, high mounts, great scale or anything noteworthy except a long ago history of awesomeness that has long passed.

Side note: DS hero could use some PPC quirk velocity love.


Raw scale looks good on most mechs. NOVA looks a bit small though. Some of the mobility nerfs on lights I don't get when you couple in the size increases. While from a volume prospective point the light mech rescale makes sense. The light population is always so low as it is. It might be a great idea to make experience and rewards better for fulfilling their role (scouting, tag, capper, ect.) to incourage lights non combat roles more relevant.

PHX does look a bit on the big side.

Edited by Rock Roller, 19 June 2016 - 11:32 PM.

[CK16]

So I was wondering, this rescaleing how does it compare to the older Mechwarrior games...

This is some of mechs currently in game (and a few not but close to in game ones)

Here are some of the MW4 ones, some are Mektek however the scale does seem.....somewhat decent....

Spoiler

Locust IIC

Jenner IIC

Flea

Wasp

Wolfhound

Centurion

Nova/ Black Hawk

Shadow Hawk

Riflemen

Catapult K2

Catapult

Dragon

Black Knight

Timberwolf

Mad Dog

Awesome

Mauler

Stalker

Cyclops

Atlas

Warhawk

Executioner

Direwolf

Kodiak

Thoughts?

[Johny Rocket]

Wtf? How is it that 2 of the worst scaled IS mechs get no rescaling?

[EgoSlayer]

Tractor Joe, on 19 June 2016 - 02:07 PM, said:

Wtf? How is it that 2 of the worst scaled IS mechs get no rescaling?

Because they weren't scaled incorrectly, they were the right size and it turns out most of the other mechs were too small...

[DivineEvil]

Trebuchet could have helped some geometry touches to make it less of a running billboard. Kintaro? Seems fine to me in relation to other 55 tonners.

[Monkey Lover]

lol they increased the other mediums to be the same size.... Next time we should shutup when thinking about asking for a fix.

[Scout Derek]

Be advised, more threads are to be merged with this one. Standby...

[Pariah Devalis]

Larger mechs, TTK decreases.

"Power draw" implemented, if done correctly, TTK increases.

Assuming PGI does the smart thing and limits both a maximum alpha as well as have a damage output per second limit, they can reign in both high alpha and high dps builds. I view the rescale as just one part of a larger shift in the balance, and if the new power draw system is sufficiently limiting, you might find yourself happy the targets are a little bigger.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 19 June 2016 - 02:55 PM.

[Darth Hotz]

Pariah Devalis, on 19 June 2016 - 02:54 PM, said:

Larger mechs, TTK decreases.

"Power draw" implemented, if done correctly, TTK increases.

Assuming PGI does the smart thing and limits both a maximum alpha as well as have a damage output per second limit, they can reign in both high alpha and high dps builds. I view the rescale as just one part of a larger shift in the balance, and if the new power draw system is sufficiently limiting, you might find yourself happy the targets are a little bigger.

I would agree if I would have faith that they present a power drain system that would be balanced and working right from the start. Unfortunately I dont believe it will and so I foresee a balancing desaster that will go on for many many months.