172 replies to this topic

[Belacose]

When something doubles in length/height while remaining in proportional scale the actual mass is increased X 8.

Fisherman would have a better understanding of this.

[cazidin]

ScarecrowES, on 14 July 2016 - 07:12 PM, said:

55 tons is roughly 80% of 70 tons, yes? So looking at that, does the one look like roughly 80% of the other? Why yes, yes it does.

Volumetric scaling should've been used like Wikipedia for a research project. An OK starting point but you should really branch off from there and look at other sources. Gameplay balance should have been considered and I don't think that it was in any serious way. Though, to be fair, even it was I know that PGI would've made mistakes on certain mechs.

[Deathlike]

Rampage, on 14 July 2016 - 07:25 PM, said:

The people who are pointing to surface area cosistently refuse to look at the Mechs as a 3D model stating that only the front proportions matter. Yet, a few of them are some of the better players in the game and I know that they will go out of their way to shoot a Mech in the side, back or top rather than face them head on because that is what I do and I am not one of the better players in the game.

It is a three dimensional game. Stop showing two dimensional images to try to prove your case. Height is only one dimension. Look at the whole.

The bias and tunnel vision here is really sad.

The only time the "Z axis" matters is for determining distance for damage.

When you're shooting at the target, you're effectively looking to shoot in 2D, even if the mech is not directly looking at you.

While hitboxes are a 3D element, you don't "shoot" in 3D in a more traditional sense. If a mech's arm directly pointed at you, the back of the arm's hitboxes become irrelevant, and the reverse is true.

As far as the game is concerned, your shot is effectively like darts on a dartboard. You can make it large as much as you'd like on the backside, but all you're aiming for is the bullz-eye in the middle. Scaling upwards is like making the bullseye larger... assuming you're shooting from the same distance in all cases.

What people assume is that scaling the mechs upward is like increasing the surface area of the dartboard while the bullseye is the same size, and that's truly not the case here.

It's not like we're throwing darts at the dartboard offset 45 degrees, where our aim and trajectory is different. Lasers are pinpoint and shooting at the mech only changes the parameters of how much of a mech is exposed through its hitboxes. In MWO, you are generally facing your targets, and the targets on you. Sure you can be flanked and such, but that changes how things work (like 2v1s and such)... most combat will be face to face, despite not being totally 1v1. The size of the frontal profile is what you're going to aim at the majority of the time.

Edited by Deathlike, 14 July 2016 - 07:52 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

FupDup, on 14 July 2016 - 07:38 PM, said:

As the final note, real life marksmen do actually practice shooting targets based on 2D profiles. Don't believe me? Well, let's take a look:

I have probably shot more in my lifetime than the Marksman in the photo. What exactly is that supposed to prove? If they put the side profile up then I could still drill it and so could the guy in the photo. It proves absolutely nothing about the scaling of 3 dimensional targets as it is a 2 dimensional target.

[ScarecrowES]

cazidin, on 14 July 2016 - 07:51 PM, said:

Volumetric scaling should've been used like Wikipedia for a research project. An OK starting point but you should really branch off from there and look at other sources. Gameplay balance should have been considered and I don't think that it was in any serious way. Though, to be fair, even it was I know that PGI would've made mistakes on certain mechs.

They certainly said gameplay and pragmatism were factors in sizing, and you can see its influence in places. I personally would have been interested to see a pure volumetric scale and have it passed off to the community to see how we felt about the results - then adjust mechs as necessary. However, whatever degree of pragmatism was used seems not to matter TOO much, because the results came out as expected - and with very few outliers, which is important.

In terms of balance though, we've been living with the new scaling for less than a month, and in that time I've seen a variety of mechs greater than anything I've seen in the last year... maybe more. And despite all the groaning about how big lights got, I see the light and mediums queues as fat as they've ever been. The new medium-sized lights and heavy-sized mediums don't seem to be coming out any worse for wear.

Interesting that after the first week or two, most complaints about the rescale disappeared. As people have been living with it, they seem satisfied enough.

Balance tweaks to come here and there as needed, but overall pretty much a success, yeah?

[Cy Mitchell]

Deathlike, on 14 July 2016 - 07:51 PM, said:

In MWO, you are generally facing your targets, and the targets on you. Sure you can be flanked and such, but that changes how things work (like 2v1s and such)... most combat will be face to face, despite not being totally 1v1. The size of the frontal profile is what you're going to aim at the majority of the time.

Not if I can help it. I have found that while playing MWO that if I am going face to face with an opponent I generally lose or am so tore up that I am dead in my next encounter. I am still relearning MW games but generally speaking I find that face tanking is a bad idea. Maybe it is because I favor Mediums. Maybe it is that my torso twisting is substandard or that I do not play the min-max meta builds but until I become a Mech God I think I will avoid the two dimensional game you describe. For me, the side profile, back profile and even the top profile is just as important as the front profile.

Edited by Rampage, 14 July 2016 - 08:13 PM.

[FLG 01]

ScarecrowES, on 14 July 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:

Height is not the only dimension that determines "size." There are, oddly enough, 2 other dimensions too.

And please... let's not think that somehow basing mech scaling on LORE would be a remotely viable idea.


Unless you're saying you're ok with the lightest mech in the game being the same height as the heaviest mech in the game.

Where is that from anyway?

The most recent size comparison is from TRO:3039 (thus being actual canon), which looks very different:



For those who missed it:
NOTE: Although size varies individually among units, this scales shows the relative size difference in each weight class.

Edited by FLG 01, 14 July 2016 - 08:09 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

Belacose, on 14 July 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

When something doubles in length/height while remaining in proportional scale the actual mass is increased X 8.

Fisherman would have a better understanding of this.

You cannot believe anything fishermen say!

[LordKnightFandragon]

ScarecrowES, on 14 July 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:

Height is not the only dimension that determines "size." There are, oddly enough, 2 other dimensions too.

And please... let's not think that somehow basing mech scaling on LORE would be a remotely viable idea.


Unless you're saying you're ok with the lightest mech in the game being the same height as the heaviest mech in the game.

It would mean the biggest mechs would be alot smaller. Then they can base the smaller mechs off the smaller big mechs.

[Deathlike]

Rampage, on 14 July 2016 - 08:03 PM, said:

Not if I can help it. I have found that while playing MWO that if I am going face to face with an opponent I generally lose or am so tore up that I am dead in my next encounter. I am still relearning MW games but generally speaking I find that face tanking is a bad idea. Maybe it is because I favor Mediums. Maybe it is that my torso twisting is substandard or that I do not play the min-max meta builds but until I become a Mech God I think I will avoid the two dimensional game you describe. For me, the side profile, back profile and even the top profile is just as important as the front profile.

I'm not saying you should facetank at all.

It's hardpoint placement and positioning that makes a significant difference in how you kill your mechs. The targets being large (Atlases coming over the top of the hill is a bad thing) only serve to generate unwanted damage depending on where you are on the battlefield.

[Pjwned]

Prosperity Park, on 14 July 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

Lore.

Sorry guys, but this franchise is based on Lore that says all Mechs are roughly the same height. That means PGI uses thicknesses mostly for volume management. There are exceptions, where smaller mediums are given fat structures (like the Hunchback).

Here is the thing, though: when you imagine halving the size of a Mech, so a 100 ton Mech would weigh 50 tons, it would not nearly become half as tall.

If a 100 ton Atlas stood 10m tall, and you shrink all 3 axis equally, a 50 Ton Atlas would stand 8m tall.

(1*1*1 = 1, and 0.8*0.8*0.8 = 0.512)

Well, as long as lore isn't an absolute guideline and we don't have 20 ton mechs nearly the same size (volume) as 100 ton mechs then that's pretty much fine; obviously the lore wasn't equipped to deal with this sort of issue and it shouldn't be followed to the letter for that reason.

I think I would personally prefer that PGI handled the whole rescale effort a little bit differently in some cases, like shrinking down some mechs' height and increasing arm thickness or something, but so far as I can tell the mechs have been scaled consistently and reasonably so I guess I'm pretty much satisfied.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

ScarecrowES, on 14 July 2016 - 08:02 PM, said:

Interesting that after the first week or two, most complaints about the rescale disappeared. As people have been living with it, they seem satisfied enough.

Actually no, a lot of us aren't. Its just as this point its more likely to get Paul in a ballerina tutu than it is to revert some of these changes.

[Rampancy]

Sigilum Sanctum, on 14 July 2016 - 09:28 PM, said:

Actually no, a lot of us aren't. Its just as this point its more likely to get Paul in a ballerina tutu than it is to revert some of these changes.

Which is hilarious, since despite all of the moaning and size comparisons, mechs are much more in-line relative to each other than they were before. Lights obviously suffered some, but all of those ZOMG MEDIUMS ARE HEAVY-SIZED complaints are talking about mediums that were already, well, "heavy-sized" by their standards before the rescale.

So basically, the blackjack and the black knight got nerfed and are still very good chassis choices while no longer being the absolute best in their class, lights are a little worse at direct combat than they were before, and there's way more parity among the other weight classes. But apparently the world is ending?

[Bishop Steiner]

Rampage, on 14 July 2016 - 07:51 PM, said:

I have probably shot more in my lifetime than the Marksman in the photo. What exactly is that supposed to prove? If they put the side profile up then I could still drill it and so could the guy in the photo. It proves absolutely nothing about the scaling of 3 dimensional targets as it is a 2 dimensional target.

that apparently the fact that targets twist, spread damage to their sides, etc, never happens in tier 1 compland.

Or that because it doesn't fit neatly with their QQ narrative that they will simply continue to ignore things like facts.

[Deathlike]

Sigilum Sanctum, on 14 July 2016 - 09:28 PM, said:

Actually no, a lot of us aren't. Its just as this point its more likely to get Paul in a ballerina tutu than it is to revert some of these changes.

Why you do this? This is going to haunt my dreams.




I know everyone is humping over the 3D argument, but consider this... name a weapon that you can equip that hits in 3 directions? Hint: There isn't.

All the projectiles hit the same way. While not quite hitscan, projectiles hit things mostly on a 2D-plane.

Missiles... whether it's LRMs, Streaks, or SRMs... they also hit in a 2D field, despite having "spread" damage (not quite splash). If you hit things from the front, your missiles aren't hitting the back of the mech (unless the hitboxes are magical).


Would you like to know what weapon TRULY hits in 3 dimensions? Hint: It's the weapon of choice to eradicate people from queuing up altogether.

Yes, it's the LONG TOM.

Assuming you are the center of the "nuke", you will be hit in all sections, including the head AND back AT THE SAME TIME. Such a weapon has an AOE component (area of effect) where it can hit from multiple directions as a consequence. This is the ONLY time volume matters (except you die anyways since the damn thing is a "tactical nuke"). A lesser version of this would be airstrikes and arty, but that's a different discussion as a whole.


Literally any weapon (non-consumable) that you can equip on your mech is literally going to hit things in 2D. Thus, trying to "make a point" for volume is fruitless - only the Long Tom gives a damn, and nothing else.

[Deathlike]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 July 2016 - 09:38 PM, said:

that apparently the fact that targets twist, spread damage to their sides, etc, never happens in tier 1 compland.

Or that because it doesn't fit neatly with their QQ narrative that they will simply continue to ignore things like facts.

Yes, that's why compland universally agreed that most Light mechs that scaled up got screwed in this rescaling.

Edited by Deathlike, 14 July 2016 - 09:45 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Deathlike, on 14 July 2016 - 09:44 PM, said:

Yes, that's why compland universally agreed that most Light mechs got screwed in this rescaling.

Universally being... the same double dozen people who have complained universally about everything for 4 years?

Good to know.

But hey, when facts don't work, why not go full ad hominem, eh? That's ForumWarrior 101, after all.

So instead of arguing pointlessly with you I'll just leave it at: LOL. Dem Robots got scaled by volume, and it ain't gonna change. Deal with it.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

RampancyTW, on 14 July 2016 - 09:35 PM, said:

lights are a little worse at direct combat than they were before

There are 14 different light chassis in this game, at this time. Arguably 10 of them are irrelevant. 5 were made so because of the rescale.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 July 2016 - 09:46 PM, said:

But hey, when facts don't work, why not go full ad hominem, eh? That's ForumWarrior 101, after all.

It looks like you're taking your own advice right now.

[Bishop Steiner]

Sigilum Sanctum, on 14 July 2016 - 09:47 PM, said:

There are 14 different light chassis in this game, at this time. Arguably 10 of them are irrelevant. 5 were made so because of the rescale.

Since at any given time up to this, less than 3 Light Chassis at a time were considered relevant among the pros anyhow, not seeing the difference? Aside from more Locusts, at least til the patch.