172 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 July 2016 - 04:04 PM, said:

yet despite your trying your best to convince us all it would be the end of days... things march on pretty much as they did before.

Shocker that.

As for my subjective opinion, apparently it's shared by enough people to matter.

*shrugs*

It's just subjective and not scientific at all though, which means that from a moral standpoint you're on the same level that I am.

If you use the argument that subjective human logic is always wrong, that means you can't defend volume any better than somebody else can defend surface area or whatever other measurement of choice.

Drinking the metaphorical Kool-Aid doesn't make something objective or scientific. It just makes it popular.

Edited by FupDup, 14 July 2016 - 04:08 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Well, numbers don't lie.

1 unit wide x 1 unit tall x 1 unit deep = 1 cubic unit of mass.

0.8 units wide x 0.8 units tall x 0.8 units deep = 0.512 units of mass.

[FupDup]

Prosperity Park, on 14 July 2016 - 04:08 PM, said:

Well, numbers don't lie.

1 unit wide x 1 unit tall x 1 unit deep = 1 cubic unit of mass.

0.8 units wide x 0.8 units tall x 0.8 units deep = 0.512 units of mass.

But that doesn't objectively prove how volume is somehow better than any other form of measurement like surface area. You're just posting a bunch of numbers without any context.

Edited by FupDup, 14 July 2016 - 04:09 PM.

[cazidin]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 July 2016 - 04:05 PM, said:

yet despite your trying your best to convince us all it would be the end of days... things march on pretty much as they did before.

Shocker that.

As for my subjective opinion, apparently it's shared by enough people to matter.

*shrugs*




This is a video game forum. People can't hear your logic over all the butthurt thundering in their ears.

Interestingly enough, PGI caused this problem. While yes, I can appreciate the reasoning behind the rescale we all can see some significant problems. The Nova and Catapult, as an example, may've been shrunk down small enough to defy the scaling system used whereas the Firestarter or Griffin are incredibly larger than they probably should be.

If PGI used volumetric scaling and then applied changes based on what is best for gameplay things might be a lot better. We wouldn't have giant Jenners or Tiny Locusts running around the battlefield. Very little pragmatism was applied from what many of us can see and they almost entirely relied upon whatever the volumetric matrix told them.

Also the Black Knight and Grasshopper didn't need to get taller!

[ScarecrowES]

FupDup, on 14 July 2016 - 04:06 PM, said:

It's just subjective and not scientific at all though, which means that from a moral standpoint you're on the same level that I am.

If you use the argument that subjective human logic is always wrong, that means you can't defend volume any better than somebody else can defend surface area or whatever other measurement of choice.

You CAN argue, entirely objectively, that regardless of the method chosen... any objective method applied universally would result in the same fundemental proportional differences as any other. Their specific results may change, but their proportional ones would not. Doesn't matter if it's volume, surface area, profile... if it's math, results are the same.

The only way you get out of that is by having a different method for every mech, applied in type and degrees at the total discretion of the person doing the work. "Balance" by dartboard.

[FupDup]

ScarecrowES, on 14 July 2016 - 04:10 PM, said:

...Their specific results may change, but their proportional ones would not. Doesn't matter if it's volume, surface area, profile... if it's math, results are the same....

So are you agreeing that volume is not superior to everything else?

[ScarecrowES]

FupDup, on 14 July 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

So are you agreeing that volume is not superior to everything else?

I'm saying volume was by far the easiest and most fool-proof of the available non-dartboard options. However, if we had used another method... surface area, for instance, your basic results would have been the same. There are fundamental mathematical relationships between surface area and volume - and as I've long since demonstrated, even profile is intrinsically linked directly to volume. Regardless of what specific metric you're using, the nature of math and geometry links those different metrics together.

You and I could describe a given cube differently. One of us could say the cube has such and such a volume. The other could say "no, that cube has such and such square inches of surface area." A third could point out that the cube is such and such inches tall. None of those metrics exists independenly. All are valid methods of describing the same object.

Using any one of those methods to "sort" mechs ends up with the same hierarchy. And proportions that would be fundamentally the same. Specific dimensions might change. Some mechs would be somewhat larger or smaller than they would if using another method, but where they fit against other mechs wouldn't change.

So I suppose what I'm saying is... if you're unsatisfied with the results you're seeing in mech proportions, there's no mathematical reasoning and methodology that could have been used that you would have found more satisfying.

The only method that MIGHT have satisfied your personal sense of balance better would have been something totally subjective and applied wantonly. Then again, that cleanly describes the method that PGI used to provide the initial scaling in the first place.

Volume was going to be the method that could be most readily applied in a matter that was going to completely discount any unique geo on a mech. That was our best shot. And really, if you actually look at all the mechs together taken from the same view, the results are actually pretty damn good, all things considered.

Even the post rescale profile analytics players posted showed very consistent sizing in every methodology used to estimate results - with few outliers in any judgement. There's little doubt volume produced the desired effect... though some might argue that this is not exactly the same as providing "balance." I think that's a concept any reasonable person would agree with. Sizing mechs properly does not inherently provide balance. But it's a necessary first step.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 14 July 2016 - 04:26 PM.

[FupDup]

ScarecrowES, on 14 July 2016 - 04:20 PM, said:

I'm saying volume was by far the easiest and most fool-proof of the available non-dartboard options.

That belief is subjective.

[ScarecrowES]

FupDup, on 14 July 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

That belief is subjective.

Possibly... but an opinion very easily defended by reasoned fact.

[El Bandito]

HBK so far had escaped Russ' notice. Let's keep it that way.

[ScarecrowES]

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.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 14 July 2016 - 04:34 PM.

[CanadianCyrus]

If you want to see the greatest wtf discrepancy, try looking at the Hellbringer and the Grasshoper. There's supposed to be a 5 ton difference between the two mechs. Look at the difference and tell me if that's 5 tons.

[AztecD]

its all

[Felicitatem Parco]

I really think this boils down to how much BattleTech you want, and how much Sim you want feathered into it.

Want better scaling? Use practical military designs. Want things to look like the Lore and line art? Follow that. Hunchback line art looks like little fat Hobbitssesss... fat little Hobbits, they are.

[CK16]

You guys wanted your skinny Gundams, the mass has to go somewhere...either get fat or get tall.

[Trauglodyte]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 July 2016 - 03:55 PM, said:

and ignoring how 3D volume scaling actually works... double mass ain't anywhere near double size.

Square Cube Law, kids? 15 tons? Between 55 and 70 tons? Not going to see a huge jump in overall proportions. But they know this. But it argues against the Subjective 2D cardboard cutout shooter theory of subjective balancing.

*shrugs*



Can't say I care much either way. People will just find something else to QQ and whinge about.

You're wasting your time, Bishop. The QQ kids just don't understand basic geometry and how volume actually works and none of them want to accept the fact that 15 tons, by way of volume, is very little actual space.

FupDup, on 14 July 2016 - 04:09 PM, said:

But that doesn't objectively prove how volume is somehow better than any other form of measurement like surface area. You're just posting a bunch of numbers without any context.

The tonnage IS the context, genius.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 14 July 2016 - 05:01 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Funzo, on 14 July 2016 - 04:37 PM, said:

If you want to see the greatest wtf discrepancy, try looking at the Hellbringer and the Grasshoper. There's supposed to be a 5 ton difference between the two mechs. Look at the difference and tell me if that's 5 tons.

There's not actually any size discrepancy.



The Hellbringer is a far fatter mech everywhere, including the torso. The Grasshopper is merely taller. Realistically, despite the height difference, they have essentially the same volume of torso. Even the limb volume is largely the same, thought the Grasshopper goes for skinnier and taller over the fatter and shorter legs of the Hellbringer. Looking at them side by side, they don't look out of proportion.

[ScarecrowES]

Trauglodyte, on 14 July 2016 - 04:58 PM, said:

You're wasting your time, Bishop. The QQ kids just don't understand basic geometry and how volume actually works and none of them want to accept the fact that 15 tons, by way of volume, is very little actual space.


The tonnage IS the context, genius.

I wouldn't be hard on FupDup here. He's not being deliberately obtuse. Not obtuse at all. He's merely arguing that volume was not inherently better than other methods. He wouldn't be completely wrong on that account. Other methods could have been used and would have resulted in nearly the exact same result. We COULD have used surface area.

Where I would have a differing opinion from FupDup is that I think that volume was the best of the available options, give what we were trying to do. If mechs were more... consistent and universal in their design, another method might have worked better than volume. But volume has its advantages, not the least of which are that it ignores shape almost entirely and that it's a measurement built right into the modeling software the mechs are built on. The former means more reliable results, and the latter means an easier process to follow.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Cuz PGI cant measure for ****.

All the mechs besides the lights and Catapults are STILL WWWWWWAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY to ******* big.

The Lights and Catapult are literally the only mechs that are the right size. The 70t Warhammer is now like 2 Catapults tall. The PHX is as tall as the Atlas...45t, tall as an oversized Atlas...lol.

And Russ claims to be a huge fan of BT, yet he makes a game where every mech is massively oversized. Such a fan woulda at least based his mechs off the TROs...but I think he lies.

[FupDup]

LordKnightFandragon, on 14 July 2016 - 05:21 PM, said:

Cuz PGI cant measure for ****.

All the mechs besides the lights and Catapults are STILL WWWWWWAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY to ******* big.

The Lights and Catapult are literally the only mechs that are the right size. The 70t Warhammer is now like 2 Catapults tall. The PHX is as tall as the Atlas...45t, tall as an oversized Atlas...lol.

And Russ claims to be a huge fan of BT, yet he makes a game where every mech is massively oversized. Such a fan woulda at least based his mechs off the TROs...but I think he lies.

Basing mech scaling off of the TROs would also result in a lot of mechs being really gigantic. TRO scaling is pretty bad, perhaps even worse than both the current volume scale and previous non-volume scale.