776 replies to this topic

[Oberost]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 June 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

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!)

Yes, probably you're right, but at this moment the game if far from being balanced (closer than before, but not enough), so being strict with the volumetric rescaling while the balance of the game is far from perfect don't make sense to me.

What kind of quirks they will need to apply to some mechs to try to balance it? In fact, why some mechs are skyscrapers after the rescale while at the same time got their quirks reduced? And others getting smaller just lose some minor structure points (looking at you Catapult)?

Doesn't make sense to me. And I fear that in the next re-quirkening we'll see some really incomprehensible changes in the best PGI style...

[Bishop Steiner]

Oberost, on 24 June 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

Yes, probably you're right, but at this moment the game if far from being balanced (closer than before, but not enough), so being strict with the volumetric rescaling while the balance of the game is far from perfect don't make sense to me.

What kind of quirks they will need to apply to some mechs to try to balance it? In fact, why some mechs are skyscrapers after the rescale while at the same time got their quirks reduced? And others getting smaller just lose some minor structure points (looking at you Catapult)?

Doesn't make sense to me. And I fear that in the next re-quirkening we'll see some really incomprehensible changes in the best PGI style...

You may indeed be right. But if PGI never sets an unmoving baseline anywhere, we literally cannot achieve balance ever. We still never may, but I feel it better to at least move in the right direction. An the rescale is step one.

If step 2, 3, etc never come, well, we're screwed regardless of the rescale or not.

[Raso]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 June 2016 - 11:47 AM, said:

You may indeed be right. But if PGI never sets an unmoving baseline anywhere, we literally cannot achieve balance ever. We still never may, but I feel it better to at least move in the right direction. An the rescale is step one.

If step 2, 3, etc never come, well, we're screwed regardless of the rescale or not.

I think the entire problem is this baseline approach. From the very beginning is makes the false assumption that the mechs were designed, from the ground up, with hotboxes in mind. They were not. Shier internal mechanisms and density are also unknown and assumed. So what we have is a an irrational adherence to logic used to rationalize irrational designs. Even so that's not even the problem!

The problem is that in a fantasy game where people use bogus physics defying jump drives to traverse the galaxy so they can use irrational and impractical robots who use fantasy weapons to attack other scientifically impractical robots so they can facilities that use fantasy technology to communicate over vast interstellar distances in the blink of an eye we're concerned with accurately attributing every last gram of a non-existent robots that were designed to look cool and couldn't even manage to pull that off in the original source material because the game company hired someone who had protractors for hands to draw then. That was the focus. That was the goal. Not making balancing mech design. Not making mechs useful. The goal was to rationalize a system by which irrational designs are given uniformity even if it means harming the playibility of a mech or mechs an under-preforming mech even less desirable. That's the entire problem and it's not some crazynotion that maybe there are some fairly objective instances where they should of thrown this entire system out the wind and left a mech's size well enough alone or made it smaller.

I can't fathom, I truly can not fathom, why this is such a hard concept for everyone to grasp. Like, some of you are making this out to be some sort of existential matter. "Without mass and volume as a base line how can we ever truly say everything is really balanced? Only by surrendering to math can we truly and objectively say we are where we are." It's as though there is no degree of common sense that could've been applied to the resizing of some mechs without a great deal of fall out. There are a lot of reasons why some mechs play bad but taking mechs that play bad and making them bigger only makes them play worse. That should never happen from a balance stand point and, frankly, if you're the kinda company that shills mech packs as one of your main sources of income you don't want people getting use to the idea that most mechs are worthless and not worth your money.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yes , instead let's use purely subjective methods which offer no consistency whatsoever, and are subject to the wings of the meta.

Bravo, I'm sure that's a much more successful approach.

[Jables McBarty]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 24 June 2016 - 02:21 AM, said:

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...

wait, wut?


....not sure what you're trying to say at all now that i reread the whole post, but you do realize the rescale is based on the premise that all 'mechs have an (approximately) equivalent density, right? Same basic materials, etc. Like people have been saying that every third post.

[MrVei]

my BH2 gets legged all the time now T_T even with max armor,... any one else having issues with the MAD line?

[Raso]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 June 2016 - 12:40 PM, said:

Yes , instead let's use purely subjective methods which offer no consistency whatsoever, and are subject to the wings of the meta.

Bravo, I'm sure that's a much more successful approach.

Subjective doesn't equate bad. Baseline does not equate good. This baseline approach only makes it so that if anyone asks "why is that mech oversize" you have a concrete, mathematical formula you can throw at them and say "It's not too big! It's exactly the size it should be!". It makes is so that the conversation shifts away from if a mech's size contributes to is viability, or lack there of, to weather or not the mech is sized per real world physics.It has nothing to do with balance. It's about aesthetics and uniformity versus all else.

But it would seem that people would rather mechs no one already plays get bigger and become less useful rather than use the scary, existential terror that is this subjective analysis. Because in this game space ships give a flying finger to the laws of physics in order to travel faster than the speed of light we can't have any mechs sized in a way that breaks the laws of physics. That would be silly! Free will and common sense is hard, but math is basically god!

Edited by Raso, 24 June 2016 - 01:06 PM.

[Brizna]

Ultimately if Battletech universe was based on real physics no one would build mechs, tanks are cheaper, sturdier and pack more volume in less target surface.

[Mcgral18]

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?

The issue there, Quirks shouldn't be the primary way to balance robots

It's a **** bandaid


Tertiary, I can see...but using them as a primary balancing point?
Neg

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcgral18, on 24 June 2016 - 03:55 PM, said:

The issue there, Quirks shouldn't be the primary way to balance robots

It's a **** bandaid


Tertiary, I can see...but using them as a primary balancing point?
Neg

This is true.

You should have consistent scale and maximized hitboxes first to set a baseline.
The one compares Geometry and Weapon placement to decide who and what gets how much hardpoint inflation.
Then one uses Quirks to spackle in what can't be fixed that route, and or to add to the Role/Character of the chassis.

Of course, for that to actually work requires step one, which some are so adamant should be inconsistent, subjective and apparently based on 2D thinking.

*shrugs*

Is volume perfect? By no means, but it's less imperfect than every other option given.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 24 June 2016 - 04:05 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 June 2016 - 04:04 PM, said:

Is volume perfect? By no means, but it's less imperfect than every other option given.

You can use Volume, but don't use it a gospel and ignore everything else important in Shooty Stompy Robots
That just leads to useless robots (or Power Creep, the other way around)


Cry all you want, but frontal profile makes a difference in how easy it is to gank the opposition (and to not be ganked yourself)

[Hit the Deck]

Raso, on 24 June 2016 - 01:03 PM, said:

...
But it would seem that people would rather mechs no one already plays get bigger and become less useful rather than use the scary, existential terror that is this subjective analysis. Because in this game space ships give a flying finger to the laws of physics in order to travel faster than the speed of light we can't have any mechs sized in a way that breaks the laws of physics. That would be silly! Free will and common sense is hard, but math is basically god!

If you listen to the last Town Hall, Russ said that PGI chose to use determine 'Mech size mathematically to avoid one, players' complaints regarding the sizes, and two, the associated headache related to subjective balancing the sizes. I'm paraphrasing rather liberally here so take it with a grain of salt

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcgral18, on 24 June 2016 - 04:13 PM, said:

You can use Volume, but don't use it a gospel and ignore everything else important in Shooty Stompy Robots
That just leads to useless robots (or Power Creep, the other way around)


Cry all you want, but frontal profile makes a difference in how easy it is to gank the opposition (and to not be ganked yourself)

and so does side profile. And whether they have big beefy arms. And if stompy robots are fast. Heck if LRMs were better balanced, yes the size of the top profile would be more important to.

As for crying? If that's what I'm doing, have you looked in the mirror? Bleating like a drama queen.

SMH.

[Mcgral18]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 June 2016 - 04:48 PM, said:

and so does side profile. And whether they have big beefy arms. And if stompy robots are fast. Heck if LRMs were better balanced, yes the size of the top profile would be more important to.

As for crying? If that's what I'm doing, have you looked in the mirror? Bleating like a drama queen.

SMH.

Your general argument always sums up to:

"The volume adds up bro"

And I reply
**** your volume


The other profiles mean SO MUCH MORE than volume, yet are completely ignored by PGI's method, because "The volume adds up Bro"

Again, and again, and again
Volume is bad for balance, if you ignore what shape the mechs are. Cue the lulzy Jenner VS Pult, or Warhammer VS Griffin
Yes, I laugh at those just as much as you, but obviously for different reasons. Just because "The volume adds up Bro" doesn't mean it's a good thing

[Ultimax]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 June 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

problem with exceptions...is soon, in our entitlement generation,

PGI already made exceptions, for example there is no way the Jester & K2 have the same volume as their Missile based siblings.

They clearly have less volume for their tonnage than other Catapults, because they have smaller arms.


Which highlights the issue in that Catapults are very small now, due to how much volume went to their arms in the calculation - other mechs like the Jenner got larger, because they do not have arms to share volume.


Then there is the Grasshopper, massively penalized because it has thin legs that do not contain proportionally as much volume as the legs of other heavies - and instead has gained a frontal profile that is enormous.




A volumetric approach, with no other considerations is flawed because our mechs are not cubes, or spheres or any standardized shape.

Edited by Ultimax, 24 June 2016 - 05:38 PM.

[EgoSlayer]

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.

Right, because we are not shooting at a 2-D silhouette of the mechs in game. Oh wait, We *are*.



And it's not like just because something is bigger in all dimensions that it's not bigger from every possible view. Oh wait, IT IS...


Shocking.

Bigger is always bigger, from every angle. And Bigger is bad when you are being shot at. Anyone who doesn't believe that is either ignorant or fooling themselves. What actual effect that has in game remains to be seen.

Oh, and relative size means *nothing*. Both screen shots were taken from an oxide so the there was zero change in the relative sizes, and yet somehow the absolute size its still bigger onscreen after the re-scale...


EDIT: FYI for those that don't know the tourny client didn't get the re-scaled mechs. So the above screens are a real before (tourny) to after (current) comparison.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 24 June 2016 - 06:06 PM.

[Hannibal Chow]

Opinion? I'm done. If anyone wants me I'll be playing something (anything) else.

[Bishop Steiner]

EgoSlayer, on 24 June 2016 - 05:53 PM, said:

Right, because we are not shooting at a 2-D silhouette of the mechs in game. Oh wait, We *are*.



And it's not like just because something is bigger in all dimensions that it's not bigger from every possible view. Oh wait, IT IS...


Shocking.

Bigger is always bigger, from every angle. And Bigger is bad when you are being shot at. Anyone who doesn't believe that is either ignorant or fooling themselves. What actual effect that has in game remains to be seen.

Oh, and relative size means *nothing*. Both screen shots were taken from an oxide so the there was zero change in the relative sizes, and yet somehow the absolute size its still bigger onscreen after the re-scale...


EDIT: FYI for those that don't know the tourny client didn't get the re-scaled mechs. So the above screens are a real before (tourny) to after (current) comparison.

Thank You for so ably demonstrating that the side aspect also matters. Bravo..

[Tarl Cabot]

EgoSlayer, on 24 June 2016 - 05:53 PM, said:

Right, because we are not shooting at a 2-D silhouette of the mechs in game. Oh wait, We *are*.



And it's not like just because something is bigger in all dimensions that it's not bigger from every possible view. Oh wait, IT IS...


Shocking.



EDIT: FYI for those that don't know the tourney client didn't get the re-scaled mechs. So the above screens are a real before (tourny) to after (current) comparison.

Sorry though but something is not right though. The Red Arrow with the Red disstance above the jenner is, from comparing it in the Practice maps, is the center of the mech (from another thread about a player's PPC not doing any damage). The yellow arrow to the side is the cross hair distance. It is the same on both and it shouldn't be.

Never mind, the crosshairs are slightly off on each picture, the front is down a tad on the slope and the angle is a tad off on the side view. With exact setting, the live jenner, depending on rounding, may have shown a rd.100m/y.95m vs y.94m on front view and a rd.100m/y.96m vs y.95m on the side view.

Anyhow, PGI should have set the minimum size of a mech that would not benefit too much from hit reg issues due to its size/speed/HSR. The other issue is there was no set formula in place when the mechs were created to start with. If there had been a volumetric (or other) formula in place, a mech with slightly thicker arms/legs, a slightly deeper chest would be shorter than the same size mech with a more shallow chest, thinner arms/legs. The biggest difference in play would be the differences in torso width of the mechs.

Take the awesome. There are plenty of imagines where it is not flat as a barn wall. Would it have been better if it was a little taller while having not as wide a torso, or one that angled up from the bottom? Would having a formula in place at the time it was created generated a slightly different awesome that we currently have? /shrugs.

Essentially though, this is the only time a rescaling will be done, leaving us with quirk changing mechs?

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 24 June 2016 - 08:15 PM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Quote

The other issue is there was no set formula in place when the mechs were created to start with. With using a volumetric formula, a mech with slightly thicker arms/legs, a slightly deeper chest would be shorter than the same size mech with a more shallow chest, thinner arms/legs.

and a ´65 t Mech with no Arms and Misslelauncher get very very smaller like a 30t Mech ,as a 75t Mech (Timberwolf ) with Misslelauncher AND Arms (have Arms not Tonnage ? put in Madcat Arm a Large Laser ...the Laser alone have 4t..2x8t only with for the Armweapons