172 replies to this topic

[Rampancy]

Mcgral18, on 15 July 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

It's the loadout that is used, sorry Bishop, PGI is to blame there.




Now, would you prefer to state how weapon geometry ***** some robots over entirely, while the Catapult gets Gigabuffed by the same arbitrary logic?

https://m.imgur.com/a/1kW0H
All so far

Oh hey, look at that. When neither mech has extra missile geometry tacked on, it looks absolutely dead-on. Whaddaya know.

[Lily from animove]

ScarecrowES, on 15 July 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

That's the "pragmatism" and "gameplay" factors intruding on absolute scaling. Like I said earlier in the discussion, I'd have greatly preferred we started with a pure volumetric scaling first, and THEN added "pragmatic" and "gameplay" scaling into the mix.

Being 80% of the weight, a Griffin should show 80% of the volume of the Warhammer. And it does. Like it or not, that's mathematically a correct scaling.

But The Locust and Atlas shows something very different. The Locust should be 20% of the Atlas. So volumetrically, it should realistically about 50% larger (by volume) than one of the Atlas's limbs. It's not. At all.

Now, again, in-engine scaling might be different. I've noticed in the front-end UI that when I load mechs that have had their scale changed or stance modified that there's a brief moment upon initially loading that mech where it seems to default to a previous state before settling down into the new state. I don't have a Locust to compare in-match scaling or the UI state. But going purely by model, the Locust is out of sync with the overall scaling of other mechs.

But the Griffin and Warhammer... scaling is right on by volume.

ys but poor locusts just still die like flies. They aren't soem magically dodging machines.

That is the one locust I just ame across, and aside form the doublefailaim that I did they most all end up like this. there is seriosuly nothing OP with the locust it eats the alserfire fine, given you are aiming on it.

Edited by Lily from animove, 15 July 2016 - 03:02 PM.

[Mcgral18]

RampancyTW, on 15 July 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

Oh hey, look at that. When neither mech has extra missile geometry tacked on, it looks absolutely dead-on. Whaddaya know.

Read the argument

Respond to it



Why do some mechs get scaled based on their typical loadouts (getting buffed), and some get scaled without (or consider this a nerf)

[Tarl Cabot]

ComradeHavoc, on 14 July 2016 - 03:45 PM, said:

Normally I would say a sarcastic, witty response, but I'm too angry to think of anything right now. Seriously though, WHY DON'T THEY EXTEND THEIR ARMS CLOSER TO THE COCKPIT?!

This is where the arms should actually be able to articulate more, allowing a player to temporarily raise one arm at a time to a higher elevation to allow it to fire over obstacles and light mechs. But that would take... work...

[Tarl Cabot]

ScarecrowES, on 14 July 2016 - 04:32 PM, said:

To the topic at hand though... Why are IS mediums so tall? I can only guess because the concept of designing a vehicle of war to have the smallest possible profile as a means to make it harder to target was Lostech - saved for the chosen children of the Great Kerensky upon his exodus. Hence why Spheroids tend to prefer humanoid mechs, while Clanners revel in their hunched superiority.

Without an actual formula in place for when the mechs were first designed for MWO, there was nothing hard to follow except for previous incarnations, depictions and lore. The mech were rescaled but not redesigned, be thicker legs/arms, a deeper chest, etc.

PGI also has in place the movement archetypes that are based on HEIGHT of the mech, not tonnage/overall size.

http://mwomercs.com/...ent-archetypes/

http://mwomercs.com/...viour-feedback/

Quote

Quote

TercieI, on 30 June 2016 - 08:45 AM, said:

I keep seeing this comment but why? Movement archetype is a funny name. All it controls is hill climbing and collision box size. It doesn't actually affect agility.

That's correct. It causes the Jenner to slow down more and faster - substantially so - when moving uphill. Slower=easier target=stops on more steep inclines than it used to.

Movement archetypes have a significant impact on how a mech transverses obstacles.

But still, as with the scale changes, it's very hard to predict - to quantify, more accurately - the game impact of these changes.

http://mwomercs.com/...or/page__st__60

Spoiler

In addition to the movement for slopes, those archetypes are also consolidating the Mech vs world collision capsules.

Before this system, each 'Mech would have its own pill-shaped collision proxy fitted for its rough shape, making a ton of different 'Mechs get stuck in slightly different locations. Now, with 5 capsules, we can design levels for specific collision capsule sizes, and find/fix stuck bugs much easier.

For that reason, the 'Mech archetypes looked at grouping relative size (height, length, and width) as its main consideration. Because of the extra big shoulders of the missile boxes, and the very long nose, the catapult would need to be in a larger capsule category than the heavier Cataphract. I don't think that you'll find the movement abilities between two neighboring archetypes so substantial that it would be effectively nerfing or giving substantial advantages to any 'Mech that seems out of order due to its assumed weight but smaller frame. Especially with engine speed and momentum of lighter 'Mechs still being factored in (read: a slow moving Cataphract in a smaller movement archetype is going to probably still have a harder longer time than a faster moving Catapult at climbing any substantial hill).

That being said, it's easy enough to switch some 'Mechs into a different archetype or to tune the climb angles for any archetype if needed. I don't forsee any issues with the current grouping but you don't have to worry that things are 100% set in stone as far as grouping or angles are concerned.

Triple clarification: Collision capsules for 'Mechs here are just referring to 'Mech vs. world collision, each 'Mech still has its own unique collision proxys for 'Mech vs. weapon.

edit: fixing super f'd up formatting from c/p'ing.

I would go so far as for PGI to review the archetypes and provide a steeper slope, and alternating which group a mech is in not just based on size/tonnage but whether the mech has hands or not.

[Bishop Steiner]

considering how much time, money and effort went into this, if anyone thinks they are going to do any other extensive renovations, I think they are smoking something. Might tweak some individuals, like the Locust, but realyl doubt they'll do much more.

[Mcgral18]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 July 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

considering how much time, money and effort went into this, if anyone thinks they are going to do any other extensive renovations, I think they are smoking something. Might tweak some individuals, like the Locust, but realyl doubt they'll do much more.

They'll need to resort to Uberquirking the mechs they've failed.

Kinda the thing this was supposed to prevent

[Deathlike]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 July 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

considering how much time, money and effort went into this, if anyone thinks they are going to do any other extensive renovations, I think they are smoking something. Might tweak some individuals, like the Locust, but realyl doubt they'll do much more.

We certainly know PGI will not put in extra effort (unless tweeted to death) to address these problems.

This is par for the course.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcgral18, on 15 July 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

They'll need to resort to Uberquirking the mechs they've failed.

Kinda the thing this was supposed to prevent

Uh huh.

Or...IDK... strip all the uberquirks off everything first now, and see where things are and what actualyl needs it?

Instead of bandaids plastered on top of band aids with zero baselines on anythign to work from. Which is where we were, and where any "size them by how good they play" mentality would leave us.

[ScarecrowES]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 July 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

Uh huh.

Or...IDK... strip all the uberquirks off everything first now, and see where things are and what actualyl needs it?

Instead of bandaids plastered on top of band aids with zero baselines on anythign to work from. Which is where we were, and where any "size them by how good they play" mentality would leave us.

I'd be more eager to go this route. Strip and start over, keeping in mind where we were at to begin with. Add only what's needed to bring mechs in line with their peers and differentiate them. Though honestly, we're not terribly far off for most mechs already. It's not like the tiny amount most mechs changed has any more drastic an impact on gameplay as the small quirks added to most mechs.

[Bishop Steiner]

ScarecrowES, on 15 July 2016 - 03:40 PM, said:

I'd be more eager to go this route. Strip and start over, keeping in mind where we were at to begin with. Add only what's needed to bring mechs in line with their peers and differentiate them. Though honestly, we're not terribly far off for most mechs already. It's not like the tiny amount most mechs changed has any more drastic an impact on gameplay as the small quirks added to most mechs.

the fact that to be not terribly far off most mechs have quirklists that read like a government invoice..... I don't think is a good place to be. The goal should be quirks as far and few between as possible

[ScarecrowES]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 July 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

the fact that to be not terribly far off most mechs have quirklists that read like a government invoice..... I don't think is a good place to be. The goal should be quirks as far and few between as possible

Given how low an impact many of these quirks have on a real practical level, it just shows how useless most of those quirks are from the offset. If it's 10% or under, and it's not a structure quirk, why even bother? Just my opinion there though.

[ComradeHavoc]

Juodas Varnas, on 15 July 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

[Rampancy]

Mcgral18, on 15 July 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

Read the argument

Respond to it



Why do some mechs get scaled based on their typical loadouts (getting buffed), and some get scaled without (or consider this a nerf)

Stock loadouts, fam

This isn't rocket science

The canonical warhammer has missile pack(s)

[ScarecrowES]

Speaking of quirks... new quirk pass is up. Lots of unnecessary quirks dialed back. Lots of needed quirks buffed up. Some fairly inexplicable changes too (non -3 K odiaks nerfed?) Hard to argue with most of the changes.

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 15 July 2016 - 08:37 PM, said:

Hard to argue with most of the changes.

Only if you ignore how the game works mechanically.

[Rampancy]

Side note: adjusting size based on the current meta de jour is pretty hilariously short-sighted. SRMs only recently even became viable. A Sparky and a laservomit Warhammer line up just fine, just as a Splatgriffin and and a Splathammer line up just fine, too.

[xe N on]

Using an average density (or a fixed volume to mass ratio) is not always correct if you upscale objects. There are parts in a battlemech that not necessarily take more volume if tonnage goes up.

Best example: The cockpit. Scaling up a Locust-Cockpit would result in more total free space that is not mandatory. Building an 100 ton Atlas as space efficient as possible would, therefore, result in a higher average density than a 20 ton Locust.

However, as far as I know heavier mechs at IS side were quite comfortable with space, providing sleeping cabins, toilets, etc. So, while larger mechs could be build more compact, from the lore aspect the average density model is a good approach.

Edited by xe N on, 15 July 2016 - 11:17 PM.

[Mcgral18]

FupDup, on 15 July 2016 - 10:29 AM, said:

You missed the quote that I replied to. Somebody else said that double mass doesn't mean double the size/volume, and I gave a counterexample of a current in-game matchup that is almost double the size.

Basically, the different between a Locust and a Jenner is much larger than the difference between a Griffin and an Atlas. Since it's almost double the mass in both cases, one would expect a similar magnitude of size difference for both cases.

Since the size differences in both examples are completely different despite having very similar mass ratios (35/20 is 1.75 and 100/55 is 1.81), this means that the so-called "objective" rescale wasn't even consistent like its proponents said it would be.

Speaking of this, can McGral create front/side comparisons between both the Atlas/Griffin and Locust/Jenner? Maybe use the Jenner IIC since both have chicken legs, which makes the comparison easier to interpret.

I ballsed both backgrounds up, but they're not Cropped so the 4 mechs are on the same relative scale

[ComradeHavoc]

Juodas Varnas, on 15 July 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

Now listen here you little ****, you've become more than you think you represent. You are literally the mascot for any hope of quads being added to MWO, and with the addition of the upcoming inverse kinematics you have a chance, admittedly small, but still a chance.

So if you actually care for quads, never give in, keep being the poster boy for quads, keep begging and get popular, and never lose hope, you pant's crapping baby.

GET US QUADS IN GAME.

YOU'RE MY HERO.

Edited by ComradeHavoc, 16 July 2016 - 01:20 AM.