156 replies to this topic

[Ultimax]

Wintersdark, on 27 June 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

No, but as I said, it would be impossible to do the rescale for with balance as a target.

It would not be impossible.

Scaling a few mechs down, and then quirking as needed would have been better than scaling nearly every mech UP and then quirking as needed.

Have you not seen that more mechs got larger, than smaller?

They are literally going in the opposite direction.


What they needed to do, if they were going to spend this much time and effort on this, was actually factor in the importance of surface area, the importance of profiles, make adjustments to their calulations based on the idiosyncrasies of mech designs.

Instead, it feels like they decided to rob Peter, Tim, John, Harry, Fred, Bill, Ted, Mike and Jim (many mechs) ... all to pay Paul (the mini-pult, the nova).

In essence, they probably had an aesthetic break point for how small the Nova & Catapult could become before it was unappealing or "too small" and then instead of taking into consideration the idiosyncracies of their design - they decided that for everything to align to the formula - then many mechs must get larger.

So in essence, they had a balance issue derived from an aesthetic factor, and decided to use a formula that created more even more balance issues to satisfy an aesthetic factor.

Wintersdark, on 27 June 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

Both because PGI doesn't do balance really well overall, and because balance is a moving target, and resizing the game models has never been done before and as I've said elsewhere, the outcome was unknown.

The outcome was unknown to people who are not knowledgable in how the game is actually played.

I promise there are plenty of players stunned that PGI could not see the outcome of this direction.

Wintersdark, on 27 June 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

Not in terms of "bigger=worse, smaller=better", but in terms of, say, numerical amounts of performance change relative to size change, and if/where major breakpoints lie for size/performance.

You don't err on the side of negative impact, instead of on the side of positive impact because you don't know the performance change relative to the size change.



You're right though, this is the dump that we got and are likely stuck with.

Edited by Ultimax, 27 June 2016 - 11:39 AM.

[VanguardMk1]

I just encountered a Locust with his Butterbee pal. My Kodiak-3 liked them and befriended the Butterbee quickly and legged the locust. I stared him down as he knew what was coming

all the rage from them shooting me in my rear went into that cute little thing

[Moldur]

"use streaks or something."

[3xnihilo]

Wow! A real live "Locusts are OP" thread!

So the thing is, it is mostly a perception problem. The way the game is set up, the purpose of every person in every mech is to kill as many mechs as possible. So, light mechs should be able to kill/damage on par with other weight classes. They just use speed and mobility rather than armor and massive firepower. Now, if you see an assault pull a 5 kill 750-1000 damage round, it was a good round. If a locust does it, Locusts are OP plz nerf. The truth is, it is still easier to score better in a heavy than anything else, that is why the heavy queue is so full. Lights are harder to post big scores with (thus less in queue), but they are incredibly annoying if they catch you by yourself, so they invoke much more whining.

All that said, I find assault class mechs the hardest to use in the game, so I do have a lot of respect for you guys that make them work

[Metus regem]

As a Lolcust pilot, this sums up my response to all of this:



If you can't kill us in one shot, learn to aim better.

[Wintersdark]

Ultimax, on 27 June 2016 - 11:37 AM, said:

It would not be impossible.

Scaling a few mechs down, and then quirking as needed would have been better than scaling nearly every mech UP and then quirking as needed.

But they'd never get that right. They'd scale the wrong ones down, by the wrong amounts, because there's no real way to know exactly how much smaller to go. But whatever, again, it's academic now.

Quote

Have you not seen that more mechs got larger, than smaller?

They are literally going in the opposite direction.

In the very post you quoted:

Wintersdark, on 27 June 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

I will say, they went very much larger than I expected overall. Much larger. I expected few mechs to grow, and was quite surprised at how many did. They should have gone smaller, yes.

Quote

What they needed to do, if they were going to spend this much time and effort on this, was actually factor in the importance of surface area, the importance of profiles, make adjustments to their calulations based on the idiosyncrasies of mech designs.

*sighs* What, exactly, in absolute numbers relative to quirks, is the importance of surface area? Profiles?

This is the problem. If they'd tried, they'd have failed, and badly. They failed anyways, but they failed because they targeted larger than they should have overall, and because they tried to scale for balance. They shouldn't have, because they're terrible at it.

Quote

In essence, they probably had an aesthetic break point for how small the Nova & Catapult could become before it was unappealing or "too small" and then instead of taking into consideration the idiosyncracies of their design - they decided that for everything to align to the formula - then many mechs must get larger.

I'm sure this is exactly what happened, actually.

Quote

So in essence, they had a balance issue derived from an aesthetic factor, and decided to use a formula that created more even more balance issues to satisfy an aesthetic factor.

I'd argue the bigger problem is that they didn't use a consistent formula. By their own post, they admit that scaling ISN'T purely volumetric but also altered for "balance and gameplay reasons". They didn't do pure volumetric scaling, they tried to do things for balance, and they fudged it up as expected.

Quote

The outcome was unknown to people who are not knowledgable in how the game is actually played.

I promise there are plenty of players stunned that PGI could not see the outcome of this direction.

You misunderstand. Please, re-read that part of my post, or don't, it doesn't matter. In short: NOBODY knew exactly (in terms of quirk numbers) how much a given percentage of scale would impact mechs. EVERYBODY knew bigger=worse, smaller=better, but that isn't anywhere close to the whole story. A 2% increase or decrease in scale has 0% gameplay impact. But a larger change suddenly can have a HUGE impact. It's non-linear, and the exact amount of "a HUGE impact" was unknown. Now it's less unknown; but still, it had NEVER been done before.

I'm sure there's lots of people who claimed (and claim) to know exactly, but they're full of crap. Nobody has done this before, in ANY 3D game. It's wholly new territory.

Quote

You don't err on the side of negative impact, instead of on the side of positive impact because you don't know the performance change relative to the size change.

As I said, they went bigger, and they shouldn't have. You don't need to keep saying this.

Quote

You're right though, this is the dump that we got and are likely stuck with.

Definitely stuck with. I'd ************* if they rescaled another mech - it's a ton of work, and they're extremely unlikely to chase their tails when they can just play with quirks instead.

[Mystere]

EvilCow, on 27 June 2016 - 09:02 AM, said:

The ACH and Locust are the remaining problems, the rest of the class is where it belongs, useful but not OP.

Locusts are OP? Now I have heard everything.

[Maugged]

Mystere, on 27 June 2016 - 12:03 PM, said:

Locusts are OP? Now I have heard everything.

[Jonny Taco]

This thread is like 50% strawmen targeted at the other positions.

[stealthraccoon]

How 'bout I shelve the Locusts for a time and start humping the daylights out of your legs in my Commando instead?

Would that make you feel less sucky?

But really, you get backstabbed or legged, it's likely your own fault. Little mech = no hit points. Shoot them and they go away.

Edited by stealthraccoon, 27 June 2016 - 12:28 PM.

[Aiden Skye]

vocifer, on 27 June 2016 - 12:49 AM, said:

I'm glad the Locust is now this size. Perhaps people will learn to use communication...

I'll tell you one secret: 1 teammate is all you need to get that bug out of your leg. It doesn't really matter how fat is your Atlas if it's bottom is under cover.

Umm no.....Having X-amount of teammates trying to shoot a locust that is circle strafing me?


In my last MWO session my shadowcat was teamkilled by some "friendlies" trying to get a said locust off me.... Just a sea of slow burning lasers and AC rounds blowing up all around my mech. Yeah thanks for the help guys. Got that locust dead alright...NOT.

Edited by W A R K H A N, 27 June 2016 - 12:33 PM.

[DarthHias]

I just pulled an 800 damage game in my 5 Medium Wubs Adder (which is by the way easier to do consistently well in) so Adder OP too?

Maugged, on 27 June 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

Quoting just to see it again

[Narcissistic Martyr]

VanguardMk1, on 27 June 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:

I just encountered a Locust with his Butterbee pal. My Kodiak-3 liked them and befriended the Butterbee quickly and legged the locust. I stared him down as he knew what was coming

all the rage from them shooting me in my rear went into that cute little thing

See this hostility right here? This is why good light jocks learn the head hit boxes of every assault. Go ahead line that killing shot up. Hope you didn't strip any armor off your head or take more than a few laser grazes.

[BabyCakes666]

after seeing this thread i had to make this vid

EVERY TIME!!! XD

[Jables McBarty]

BabyCakes666, on 27 June 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

after seeing this thread i had to make this vid

EVERY TIME!!! XD

And now we can close the thread.

[Maugged]

Lol nice one.

[Walsung]

i don't know if they should be nurfed but the rewards should be better for killing them.

damage to kill a medium to heavy say 100-150

damage to kill a locust say about 60 with about 100 into the dirt

similar effort (and more annoying turns) half the damage reward

[cazidin]

Urbanmech > Locust.

Urbanmech > All.

[Weeny Machine]

W A R K H A N, on 27 June 2016 - 12:31 PM, said:

Umm no.....Having X-amount of teammates trying to shoot a locust that is circle strafing me?


In my last MWO session my shadowcat was teamkilled by some "friendlies" trying to get a said locust off me.... Just a sea of slow burning lasers and AC rounds blowing up all around my mech. Yeah thanks for the help guys. Got that locust dead alright...NOT.

The irony here is: the people who had problems targeting light mechs before and gloated about the double nerf lights got...suddenly realize they have a real pest instead stinging their fat butts: the locust. Sorry, but I have to admit to be guilty of Schadenfreude.

Edited by Bush Hopper, 27 June 2016 - 01:38 PM.

[Jables McBarty]

Walsung, on 27 June 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

i don't know if they should be nurfed but the rewards should be better for killing them.

damage to kill a medium to heavy say 100-150

damage to kill a locust say about 60 with about 100 into the dirt

similar effort (and more annoying turns) half the damage reward

Ah but my friend, you think the reward should all be given to the killer.

You see, when you are forced to kill a locust, you only get half.

The cbills are yours.

But your tears...those belong forever to the slain locust pilot.

W A R K H A N, on 27 June 2016 - 12:31 PM, said:

Umm no.....Having X-amount of teammates trying to shoot a locust that is circle strafing me?


In my last MWO session my shadowcat was teamkilled by some "friendlies" trying to get a said locust off me.... Just a sea of slow burning lasers and AC rounds blowing up all around my mech. Yeah thanks for the help guys. Got that locust dead alright...NOT.

I'll be honest, I agree with this complaint. As a light pilot who often goes dedicated light-hunter I get pissed when all the slow fatties try to take down the light that Alpha lance is hunting. They end up doing equal amounts of damage to us as to our target.