776 replies to this topic

[DivineEvil]

It's funny how some people cannot see a general picture at all, and only see things in a way of particular chassies and favoring sides.

New scale does not favor anything. It boggles my mind, that most players do not even able to understand that.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I think the rescale brings Mechs closer to what they should be like, *regardless of performance*

I do not view the rescale as a Balancing Pass, but more of an Artistic Pass. They have to use quirks and hardpoints to "Balance" the Mechs.

I do wish they applied better quirks to balance several of the affected Mechs, such as the Zeus and most of the non-Oxide lights.

[Chimera_]

Honestly I'm pretty excited for this patch, and the following ones as well. I just find it a bit sad that people on these forums are so set in their desire to complain that they allow themselves to get surprised and angry about something that was plainly stated far ahead of time.

Rescale? Intended to bring all mechs in line with correct relative volume. Anyone who's suddenly getting upset that certain mechs are larger, or smaller, must have either not read anything they had said about the rescale previously or did and simply wanted an excuse to rant, under the veil of surprise. Those suggesting they should've made exceptions for certain mechs and whatnot are completely missing the point of this endeavor and are allowing their own bias to overrule common sense. The rescale isn't the game's final balance patch, it's a way for them to balance mechs against each other in ways more concrete than simple size.

If the rescale was intended to balance mechs perfectly, the Awesome would the size of a Cicada and the Quickdraw wouldn't have gotten so much smaller.

The downside of the rescale is that balance between the various chassis will still be pretty wild, since quirks haven't changed that much. This is nothing new however, since currently mechs are already wildly different in effectiveness.

[Malleus011]

The rescale was needed to make the models a consistent size. There will almost certainly be a major round of quirk rebalancing to compensate for the radical changes to certain chassis.

Did the Zeus 'need' to get bigger? Define 'need'. For balance purposes, no. To fit the size standard PGI has implemented to represent 'around 80 tons' yes. Size of the chassis in the rescale was unlinked from balance.

Once we get them in-game, we can see how much the 'mechs which grew in size were hurt and how much the shrinkage of others helped. Then PGI will adjust quirks accordingly. Will it take them 2-6 months longer than we'd like? Probably. But it had to be done.

[Scout Derek]

Sorry to interrupt, but I was wondering if you guys found the sticky of a topic such as this to be a good or bad idea. In about, hm, 7-8 Hours, the thread will be unstickied.

[xe N on]

Navid A1, on 19 June 2016 - 05:52 PM, said:

I need to test things for myself... but based on the images alone:

- Locust: Making it even smaller was un-called for. its unrealistically small now.

Nope. Locust is quite realistic in scale and even a little tall (mostly because it's large legs).

Edited by xe N on, 20 June 2016 - 10:56 AM.

[DivineEvil]

Procurator Derek, on 20 June 2016 - 10:17 AM, said:

Sorry to interrupt, but I was wondering if you guys found the sticky of a topic such as this to be a good or bad idea. In about, hm, 7-8 Hours, the thread will be unstickied.

I wish it would work the same way with other topics about new features. A sticky thread hanging for a month to gather feedback, then removal. Infinite numbers of topics made by generic players for whining about the same things is extremely frustrating and unproductive.

[Scout Derek]

DivineEvil, on 20 June 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

I wish it would work the same way with other topics about new features. A sticky thread hanging for a month to gather feedback, then removal. Infinite numbers of topics made by generic players for whining about the same things is extremely frustrating and unproductive.

And weakens the connection between PGI and us. I'll try and work something out. Maybe get a few major topics going.soon here and have more positive topics

[ShinobiHunter]

Navid A1, on 19 June 2016 - 08:06 PM, said:

The catapult seems so small now.

the new giant 35 tonners are at least in the middle ground between 30 and 40 in the size chart.
but the catapult looks like a 45 tonner now.

Spoiler

The Catapult is very squat now. If you straightened the legs like on the other two it would seem much larger.

[C E Dwyer]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 June 2016 - 04:15 PM, said:

Still not happy the volume played such a heavy part in it (like how the Stalker got smaller and the Hopper got bigger), but some of the most egregious offenders of scale were fixed, and lights while one of the worst (or at least popular) classes got an indirect nerf, they at least are inline with the rest of the mechs, specifically the "chunky lights" that are the 40 tonners. I'm certainly more happy with this than some of the quirk changes that went around nerfing meta mechs from 2 months ago (if not longer, seriously, why the Huginn?!?!?).

The Viper's profile have me worried about my pet mech though.....it looks like it could have worse hitboxes than the Cicada. In other news my other pet medium got some love in the structure department, hooray for the Vindi!

hmm yes I seem to remember that one of the things said about the Stalker was its to small from pretty much its first day, and it gets..smaller.

While a mech a lot of people dismiss, the Grasshopper gets bigger and has quirks reduced.

Still i'm not going to get worked up by it or rage anymore, i'm going to give opinions regardless of if people agree, if after the patch tomorrow I don't like the game, i'm simply going to cancel my last mech and leave quietly.

[Navid A1]

xe N on, on 20 June 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

Nope. Locust is quite realistic in scale and even a little tall (mostly because it's large legs).

Then they most probably shrank the pilot as well.

This is the old locust:

[C E Dwyer]

Procurator Derek, on 20 June 2016 - 10:17 AM, said:

Sorry to interrupt, but I was wondering if you guys found the sticky of a topic such as this to be a good or bad idea. In about, hm, 7-8 Hours, the thread will be unstickied.

Will it get read and noted by the Dev's if it will that is a good reason to sticky.

Another reason to sticky things like this to stop endless repeat posts on the same subject, makes your job easier to

[Koniving]

dervishx5, on 17 June 2016 - 04:29 PM, said:

Executioner, while one of the tallest mechs in Battletech, if not THE tallest, didn't need to get bigger.

So let's see where Bishop's accurate scale gets us. I'd be fine with the whole "Baseline Scale" concept if it didn't take PGI 50 years to adjust things.

Tallest up til 3055 (or was it 3065?) One of the two.
And yes.

Fun thing:

Executioner: 14.4 meters.


Executioner: In excess of 16 meters.
<.<
Wolfhound... somewhere between 13 and 14 meters.



Check out the scale of the Dire Wolf, as if it needed to be any worse. And the fun thing is it shrunk!

But I jest; this is a lot better than it was. Still literally everything needed to scale down.
Including engine limits and firing rates.

[DivineEvil]

Koniving, on 20 June 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

Tallest up til 3055 (or was it 3065?) One of the two.
And yes.

Fun thing:

Executioner: 14.4 meters.


Executioner: In excess of 16 meters.
<.<
Wolfhound... somewhere between 13 and 14 meters.



Check out the scale of the Dire Wolf, as if it needed to be any worse. And the fun thing is it shrunk!

But I jest; this is a lot better than it was. Still literally everything needed to scale down.
Including engine limits and firing rates.

Yeah, sure. So would you be ok if Mist Lynx would be the size of a Stormcrow?
Ice Ferret the height of a Warkhawk? Do you specifically choosing to ignore the parts of your reference, that doesn't coincide with very narrow examples you're arguing for?

What was fine for TT will never work in MWO. How many times one needs to tell you that, so that you'd understand? All your references to the legacy sketches are meaningless.

Engine limits and firing rates is a completely different discussion. Balancing iteration would likely be necessary, nobody is arguing against it, but it will only be effective when the rescale persists for a month or two.

If there would be only one thing, that rescale would achieve, it'd be a solid foundation to balance quirks for mechs as being equal, without making excessive cases based on their geometry being invalid.

[Koniving]

DivineEvil, on 20 June 2016 - 03:05 PM, said:

Yeah, sure. So would you be ok if Mist Lynx would be the size of a Stormcrow?
Ice Ferret the height of a Warkhawk? Do you specifically choosing to ignore the parts of your reference, that doesn't coincide with very narrow examples you're arguing for?

What was fine for TT will never work in MWO. How many times one needs to tell you that, so that you'd understand? All your references to the legacy sketches are meaningless.

Engine limits and firing rates is a completely different discussion. Balancing iteration would likely be necessary, nobody is arguing against it, but it will only be effective when the rescale persists for a month or two.

If there would be only one thing, that rescale would achieve, it'd be a solid foundation to balance quirks for mechs as being equal, without making excessive cases based on their geometry being invalid.

Consider that the Ice Ferret is volumetrically 'tiny' compared to the thicker, bulkier, and very projectively protruded Warhawk with arms as long as the Ice Ferret is tall when extended. Same spiel PGI is giving us.

Also consider that the height numerically given corresponds to the highest point. Look at Firemoth versus Mist Lynx. The Mist Lynx is clearly taller, but the Firemoth has its arms up while the Mist Lynx has its arms down... and it counts the arms as the highest point and thus "That is the height." The Hellbringer is taller than the Summoner because of the shoulder mounts (note in the Summoner side view it is being shown that the shoulder mount can pivot upward from the side torso while the front view shows it can rest aligned with the torso. The measurement takes it with the launcher aligned.).

The Timber Wolf is taller than a Dire Wolf exclusively because of the launchers.
-----------
In a system developed with assorted rules like a minimum of 3x damage rate (compared to their source) on all weapon systems with up to 38x possible in any 10 second period... where MWO weapons blatantly ignore the legacy, where MWO size is now a matter of volumetric density between mechs yet Battletech size wasn't a matter of weight but a matter of materials (BIG mechs of Light Weight had FERRO and ENDO... Ferro is bigger. Endo is bigger. Combine, be HUGE! Remove, be small. [Ever thought of why the Nova is so tiny?? One: No torso twist due to no pelvis. Two: No ferro or endo. Warhawk just has Ferro.]). Essentially, MWO and many Mechwarrior games have ignored these elements.

Ultimately it all ties together; either have all of it or none of it... because just part of it leads to broken systems.

Take the Cataphract 4X.
Engine starts at 210. MWO slaps a limit of 255.
What was the reason the Cataphract 4X sacrificed so much engine? Simple. Armor, low heat weapons and a large cache of ammunition bins, one of the highest caches in Battletech history.
Welp... The armor is meaningless, anyone can get max armor. There's a failure in PGI's interpretation of the system right there.
Ammo bins are meaningless, any mech can hold far more than this. Another failure in PGI's interpretation of the system.
Barring those, the 4X could wield any engine the other Cataphracts could. Oh wait, you can't, PGI slapped on another interpretation that doesn't work out.

It's interesting because an incomplete picture gets an incomplete result.
But if you take it all instead of picking and choosing... it works quite cohesively.

And agreed; a rescale is intended to do this... but even then edge cases are created, several 35 tonners are as large as some 45 tonners now.

Edited by Koniving, 20 June 2016 - 04:16 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

xe N on, on 20 June 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

Nope. Locust is quite realistic in scale and even a little tall (mostly because it's large legs).

Hmm, where is that engine, the gyro, the internal structure, the armor, the heatsinks, the other electronics, the myomer bundles... geez

[Scout Derek]

Going to unsticky this thread. There will be a thread for something in mind for what's to come tomorrow.

[DivineEvil]

Koniving, on 20 June 2016 - 04:04 PM, said:

Consider that the Ice Ferret is volumetrically 'tiny' compared to the thicker, bulkier, and very projectively protruded Warhawk with arms as long as the Ice Ferret is tall when extended. Same spiel PGI is giving us.

Replace Ice Ferret with Executioner, and Warhawk with an Atlas. A 95-tonner taller than a 100-tonner is not ok, but a 45-tonner as tall as the 85-tonner is ok. You just have pillaged your own logic.

Quote

Also consider that the height numerically given corresponds to the highest point. Look at Firemoth versus Mist Lynx. The Mist Lynx is clearly taller, but the Firemoth has its arms up while the Mist Lynx has its arms down... and it counts the arms as the highest point and thus "That is the height."
The Hellbringer is taller than the Summoner because of the shoulder mounts (note in the Summoner side view it is being shown that the shoulder mount can pivot upward from the side torso while the front view shows it can rest aligned with the torso. The measurement takes it with the launcher aligned.)

The Timber Wolf is taller than a Dire Wolf exclusively because of the launchers.

Now you've pillaged the comparison metric you were using hours ago as inaccurate.

Mind me, according to that chart, Fire Moth and Mist Lynx use the same chassis.
Kit Fox and Adder use the same chassis.
Viper and Nova use the same chassis.
Hellbringer and Summoner use the same chassis.
Mad Dog and Timber Wolf use the same chassis.
Gargoyle and Executioner use the same chassis.
Warhawk and Dire Wolf use the same chassis.
So in the end all of these pairs are supposed to be nearly identical in scale, with just lighter/heavier loadouts mounted on top of the same chassis respectively.
Personally I don't believe it would work in MWO. Do you?

Quote

In a system developed with assorted rules like a minimum of 3x damage rate (compared to their source) on all weapon systems with up to 38x possible in any 10 second period...

Current minimum damage rate is 2x (Gauss), majority of weapons has modifier of 2.5x (all weapons with 4s cooldowns) and maximum dps modifier is 8x on Machineguns. What the hell is wrong with your math?

Quote

where MWO weapons blatantly ignore the legacy,

If legacy doesn't works, it is useless. Where it works, MWO utilizes it.

Quote

where MWO size is now a matter of volumetric density between mechs yet Battletech size wasn't a matter of weight but a matter of materials (BIG mechs of Light Weight had FERRO and ENDO... Ferro is bigger. Endo is bigger. Combine, be HUGE! Remove, be small.

Plain silly. Both Endo and Ferro expansion goes inwards, which is why they occupy critical slots in the first place. IS mechs had both upgrades and many were upgraded with them when rediscovered, and it never had any adverse effects on their profile. Clan mechs were larger simply because they never cared about producing combat-unworthy mechs to begin with. The fact, that their mechs had larger profiles might have been the reason behind the differences between critical slot sizes of upgrades and weapons - both might have been occupying less critical space simply because relatively Clan mechs had more internal space to begin with.

It also just as well can be attributed to modular nature of Omni-mechs, where you need specific detachable sections to contain whole equipment elements, while IS mech could feature equpment attached in arbitrary fashion, potentially protruding from one component to another being internally hardwired. Same is true for Clan Battlemechs, which can justify why most of them should be bulkier compared to original IS models depending on a given chassis, covered by an expanded wireframe to carry equipment that is lighter, but just as large.

Quote

[Ever thought of why the Nova is so tiny?? One: No torso twist due to no pelvis. Two: No ferro or endo. Warhawk just has Ferro.]). Essentially, MWO and many Mechwarrior games have ignored these elements.

No pelvis. Period. If that element wouldn't be ignored by MWO, PGI would just produce an unplayable, constipated mech that nobody would ever care to touch.

Quote

Ultimately it all ties together; either have all of it or none of it... because just part of it leads to broken systems.

What ties together... what are you talking about? Are you sober?

Quote

Take the Cataphract 4X.

Engine starts at 210. MWO slaps a limit of 255.
What was the reason the Cataphract 4X sacrificed so much engine? Simple. Armor, low heat weapons and a large cache of ammunition bins, one of the highest caches in Battletech history.
Welp... The armor is meaningless, anyone can get max armor. There's a failure in PGI's interpretation of the system right there.
Ammo bins are meaningless, any mech can hold far more than this. Another failure in PGI's interpretation of the system.
Barring those, the 4X could wield any engine the other Cataphracts could. Oh wait, you can't, PGI slapped on another interpretation that doesn't work out.

Cataphract 4X is the only variant, that features ballistic weapons on either sides of the chassis, which means, that it requires additional ammo-transfer routes traced under the skin.

In general, PGI determines the engine limits by the original engine rating modified by the amount and type of weapon hardpoints and equipment.

Quote

It's interesting because an incomplete picture gets an incomplete result.

Highly subjective and obscure statement.

Quote

But if you take it all instead of picking and choosing... it works quite cohesively.

Then perhaps you should stop picking and choosing.

Quote

And agreed; a rescale is intended to do this... but even then edge cases are created, several 35 tonners are as large as some 45 tonners now.

Empty statement. Examples please. Oh, and please provide an example, that endures your own "but... but its bulkier" logic, because I won't waste my time with a person, who knocks out his own arguments repeatedly.

Edited by DivineEvil, 20 June 2016 - 06:04 PM.

[JC Daxion]

Hey bishop.. can ya do me a favor?

can you over lay a Firestarter.. Or one of the other humanoid 35 tonners with a cicada? It's got me curious..


To the rest of the thread though.. wow so much gloom and doom.. Stuff like this makes me laugh, At least now there is a sensible line of size/volume.. But i never realized how many mechs i played that were right on point, or way way to large.. I think i'll get a buff just by playing like i always have! YAY ME!! I wanna say i feel bad for all the mechs that were horribly out of line.. But i don't.. Time to find something else to exploit for good stats..

[Samedi Wretch]

I completely agree with Bishop and others that resizing them volumetrically is really the one and only rational way of doing it. That being said there are a few ways it could have been done better. It seems to me that more things got bigger than smaller and this is on the whole going to reduce TTK even further. That doesn't bother me too much (I don't mind large alphas and think we don't need ghost heat or any other system of making weapons less effective -- except convergence, nerf the f**k out of convergence) but I know a lot of the community won't like that aspect. I think there are a number of 2nd tier and lower mechs that were made larger, whose relative proportions could have been adjusted more intelligently, rather than simply stretching the model to arrive at the appropriate volume. EXE's should have gotten a little chunkier rather than taller for example.

Also, I'm gonna tear it up with my locusts

Edited by samadhiVOID, 20 June 2016 - 06:26 PM.