96 replies to this topic

[Ultimax]

Wintersdark, on 26 June 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

I have to seriously question this one. Comparable width and depth, but massive height difference with comparable other dimensions.

Did you really think PGI wasn't going to play with the rules?

They made exceptions where they wanted to, and ignored places they should have in favor of one of the worst changes they have made to the game in a while.


Basically, if there are players who can't hit 30T+ light mechs now, they should be embarrassed and uninstall the game.

Sigilum Sanctum, on 26 June 2016 - 09:00 PM, said:

Oh thats rich.

Hey man, some people are super happy they can actually get some damage onto light mechs now!

[Wintersdark]

Ultimax, on 26 June 2016 - 09:07 PM, said:

Did you really think PGI wasn't going to play with the rules?

They made exceptions where they wanted to, and ignored places they should have in favor of one of the worst changes they have made to the game in a while.

I was very sad when I saw their list of rules for rescaling. I was a HUGE proponent of volumetric rescaling, because it's inherently fair and can't be screwed up.

What I did NOT want to see is "...gameplay and balance reasons..." because they'd NEVER get that right... And to be fair, they couldn't get it right. As they're not going to continually adjust scale, any scale attempts that considered the current game would be invalid with the next quirk pass or any other game mechanics change.

[Mcgral18]

2C doesn't fare much better in comparison to it's Spheroid brother

[Mcgral18]

And the 2C VS 2C old is the same story as the old Jenner


Still debating on background colours (and foreground colours for that matter)

[Alistair Winter]

Wintersdark, on 26 June 2016 - 11:01 PM, said:

I was very sad when I saw their list of rules for rescaling. I was a HUGE proponent of volumetric rescaling, because it's inherently fair and can't be screwed up.
What I did NOT want to see is "...gameplay and balance reasons..." because they'd NEVER get that right... And to be fair, they couldn't get it right. As they're not going to continually adjust scale, any scale attempts that considered the current game would be invalid with the next quirk pass or any other game mechanics change.

Oh man, I missed that the first time I saw it. I guess I had a sneaking suspicion that they'd made some exceptions, because the scaling doesn't seem consistent.

"Balance reasons" is a terrible basis for rescaling in a game where mechs go from obscurity to invincibility to mediocrity in a matter of months, depending on external factors (e.g. weapon balancing, infotech, power draw).

Volumetric scaling is the only thing that makes sense, in my opinion. Everything else is arbitrary and prone to terrible decisions.

Mcgral18, on 26 June 2016 - 05:45 PM, said:

Thanks! The difference between Locust, Mist Lynx and Spider isn't as bad as I had thought.

Thunderbolt vs Black Knight though... ffs.

[Karl Marlow]

How does the old and new commando fare?

[Wintersdark]

McGral, could you either post the Black Knight and Thud images individually(so I can do it), or try overlaying them so the crotches line up? I want to get a view for how much of the biggerness is in torso, and how much is in legs...

The thuds torso starts a lot lower than the BK's, so the BK torso may not be so much bigger after all... And if the hunches on the backs where lined up in the side view... Hmm.

Maybe not as horrible as it looks at first.

[Hit the Deck]

BTW, the upcoming Night Gyr is more or less as tall as the Black Knight but with somewhat wider torso (worse hitbox).

At almost 18m high, they stand tall and proud among the tallest 'Mechs in the game, with only the Executioner being noticeably taller.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 27 June 2016 - 03:45 AM.

[XtremWarrior]

Wintersdark, on 26 June 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

I have to seriously question this one. Comparable width and depth, but massive height difference with comparable other dimensions.

Unlike people's moronic "wolfhound vs Catapult" complaints, this is a very good comparison.

On the other hand, that's roughly 1/6 again heavier, is it 1/6 taller? Hmm.



Hmm. I don't think so.


The top down view really shows how important that is to include here, As otherwise I'd have assumed the Black Knight was thinner.

Alistair Winter, on 27 June 2016 - 01:19 AM, said:

Oh man, I missed that the first time I saw it. I guess I had a sneaking suspicion that they'd made some exceptions, because the scaling doesn't seem consistent.

"Balance reasons" is a terrible basis for rescaling in a game where mechs go from obscurity to invincibility to mediocrity in a matter of months, depending on external factors (e.g. weapon balancing, infotech, power draw).

Volumetric scaling is the only thing that makes sense, in my opinion. Everything else is arbitrary and prone to terrible decisions.


Thanks! The difference between Locust, Mist Lynx and Spider isn't as bad as I had thought.

Thunderbolt vs Black Knight though... ffs.

I think you're really getting messed up by the top view:
The BL-KNT is a lot thinner than the TDR, the protruding parts are its feet.

[Alistair Winter]

XtremWarrior, on 27 June 2016 - 04:00 AM, said:

I think you're really getting messed up by the top view:
The BL-KNT is a lot thinner than the TDR, the protruding parts are its feet.

I may be getting messed up by the view, it's true. From above, I don't think the BL-KNT looks thinner than the TDR. Nor from the front, nor from the side. TDR has thicker legs from the front, BL-KNT has thicker legs from the side.

The BL-KNT is definitely bigger, but the difference between 65 tons and 75 tons is about 15%. I don't know, human eyes aren't that good at estimating volume. Looks more than 15% bigger though.

At the end of the day, this stuff is what we have quirks for. If I knew that all mechs were scaled 100% based on volume, then I would have no objections. Then we could just say "come what may" and fix the differences with quirks and adjusting base stats (torso twist, etc).

[Wintersdark]

I'm more curious that anything. If it turns out the BK is a bit too big, well, that's disappointing but it doesn't really matter. Volumetric scaling - purely volumetric scaling to a constant average density - was the way to go and would have fully ended debate on whether mechs where scaled correctly going forward. If mechs are not always scaled (mathematically) correctly then we're always going to have stupid "that mech is way too big" arguments.

But while I'm suspicious, the more I look at the BK vs the Thud, the more I think it may not be wrong. Its hard to tell, though, as shown. Obviously, the BK is taller, but things are more complicated than that.

Ultimately, though, it's academic now. PGI isn't going to rescale again, I'm pretty sure everyone knows that. We have what we have now, for good or ill. And really, if they did "fudge" some mechs? We're no worse off than we were before, just different.

[ScarecrowES]

If you look at the Catapult vs Ebon Jag... that ortho comparison is exactly why I've been saying you can't use the mechlab views for scale comparison. You gotta use modelling orthos like Mcgral did. If you look at the Catapult and Ebon Jag in mechlab, there is a huge size discrepancy. The Jag is much much bigger in the mechlab.

Good to see how much closer they are in ortho.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 27 June 2016 - 05:06 AM.

[Juodas Varnas]

When it comes to Thunderbolt, it might be smaller, because the main variant on its stock configuration has that absolutely MASSIVE LURM-DRUM OF DOOOOOM on its shoulder.

I have a feeling that they took it into account when re-scaling it.

[XtremWarrior]

Alistair Winter, on 27 June 2016 - 04:15 AM, said:

I may be getting messed up by the view, it's true. From above, I don't think the BL-KNT looks thinner than the TDR. Nor from the front, nor from the side. TDR has thicker legs from the front, BL-KNT has thicker legs from the side.

The BL-KNT is definitely bigger, but the difference between 65 tons and 75 tons is about 15%. I don't know, human eyes aren't that good at estimating volume. Looks more than 15% bigger though.

At the end of the day, this stuff is what we have quirks for. If I knew that all mechs were scaled 100% based on volume, then I would have no objections. Then we could just say "come what may" and fix the differences with quirks and adjusting base stats (torso twist, etc).

I think the Black Knight's chest is actually a bit bigger than my beautiful drawing (i can make a Tuto for Paint if you want ), but you get the general idea of how thinner it is compared to the Thunderbolt's chest.

Edited by XtremWarrior, 27 June 2016 - 05:27 AM.

[kapusta11]

Hit the Deck, on 27 June 2016 - 03:38 AM, said:

BTW, the upcoming Night Gyr is more or less as tall as the Black Knight but with somewhat wider torso (worse hitbox).

At almost 18m high, they stand tall and proud among the tallest 'Mechs in the game, with only the Executioner being noticeably taller.

And unlike BK it has fixed XL300 engine, ouch. At least it's clan XL engine though. And volume will add up, that's agood thing now, right? I say "now" because for some resaon it wasn't an issue before.

Edited by kapusta11, 27 June 2016 - 06:11 AM.

[Hit the Deck]

kapusta11, on 27 June 2016 - 06:04 AM, said:

And unlike BK it has fixed XL300 engine, ouch. At least it's clan XL engine though.

And unlike the BK, it can jump and carry a buttload of various Clan weaponry on high-ish mounts! I think the relatively slow and tallness is a good compromise, don't quirk it yet!

[RussianWolf]

How about the Ram 1500 compared to the Ram 2500 and Ram 3500.

I mean one has a 1686 lb payload, then others are 3061 and 4080 so there must be a big size difference, Right?

The tonnages are payloads, not their mass.

Flame away.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Trauglodyte, on 26 June 2016 - 02:38 PM, said:

McGral, you're missing the top down view. Remember, this is a 3d game. Part of the reason that everyone is up in arms about the new Catapult is that they forget how much surface area that top of that mech has. While I hate that it is brought into the equation, because we don't shoot top down, it is part of it all.

We would if the maps were more 3D and JJ weren't awful on anything other than a light or a medium.

[Ultimax]

Wintersdark, on 26 June 2016 - 11:01 PM, said:

I was very sad when I saw their list of rules for rescaling. I was a HUGE proponent of volumetric rescaling, because it's inherently fair and can't be screwed up.

It is not inherently fair, because we are not dealing with standardized shapes.

The only thing this will do, is create a new set of winners and losers - which then requires the tender mercy of PGI's balance team to go in and fix with quirks, something they haven't been successful at.

If we were dealing with tanks, then volumetric scaling would be fair and probably flawless - we are not.

We are dealing with designs that make no sense from an engineering standpoint.



Is it fair that a Grasshopper's frontal profile is that large, because it has skinny legs - that no one ever shoots?

It has gained more surface area in a place where you want less, and has less surface area in a place where it's largely irrelevant.

That is because PGI is slavishly adhering to both idiosyncratic designs AND strict volumetric calculations.






Also, for people who say the mechlab isn't good enough for comparisons:

https://www.reddit.c...n_mech_rescale/

https://www.reddit.c...rescale/d4h0w5n

Quote

Look closely at the mechlab background. Not even a single pixel changes except in cases where I slid a mech over to align it with another. =P

Comparing mechs in the mechlab is about as valid (if not better) as comparing them side by side in game.

[Wintersdark]

Ultimax, on 27 June 2016 - 07:25 AM, said:

It is not inherently fair, because we are not dealing with standardized shapes.

The only thing this will do, is create a new set of winners and losers - which then requires the tender mercy of PGI's balance team to go in and fix with quirks, something they haven't been successful at.

If we were dealing with tanks, then volumetric scaling would be fair and probably flawless - we are not.

We are dealing with designs that make no sense from an engineering standpoint.

Whatever. It doesn't matter now. We didn't get purely volumetric scaling, we got scaling by Paul, which was the only possible alternative.

I don't know what people expected. That was it, the only two possibilities - volumetric, or random and arbitrary. But what we have is all we'll ever have, so everything else is just random forum babbling. I'm not interested in arguing about it now.

But, at least we're no worse off than we were before, and things have mixed up a bit, and I always enjoy that. Makes my 120 some mechs more entertaining.

It's not like most of the changes have any noticeable game impact anyways.