172 replies to this topic

[Belacose]

Not to alienate the lot of y'all even further than previously, but...

I'm with Bishop Steiner on this particular polarizing issue in spite of his fed up crankiness due to the same from those opposed. Don't expect him to be a saint when y'all are anything but.

If the newly re-scaled Locust stops moving even a scrub potato such as myself can nail it. Speed should play more of a factor in not getting hit. However, mediums are not lights and the scales are now becoming more based on actual math. If one doesn't like it then pilot heavies and pretend you're in a medium. Or jump in a portly Clan Hunchback, dance around and pretend you're an air plane like me.

Also keep in mind, as Bishop previously pointed out before last patch, the sizes you see displayed in the idle lobby are not necessarily indicative of true 'in the field' scale. Appears several conveniently glance past that little tidbit without it ever really sinking in.

Ok now, opinions aside, who needs a hug? Because free hugs are on the menu and 'yours truly' the fry cook is only too happy to oblige.

[Mcgral18]

Yellonet, on 15 July 2016 - 02:18 AM, said:

This is realistic and how it should be unless you think completely arbitrary measures for balance are better than realism.
And no, this does not **** up game balance at all. The only time that's true is when two mechs stand still facing each other and exchange fire. If you're in the lighter mech doing that you only get to blame yourself.

Easier to hit robots means easier to kill robots.
We did not need easier to kill robots.

PGIs method is also arbitrary, where all mechs are apparently made up of identical materials of identical proportions, and weapon boxes are not any lighter than Legs or CT


You look at a target to shoot it, and it IS an important factor

[Mazzyplz]

Mcgral18, on 14 July 2016 - 06:40 PM, said:

Oh look, the same result!



Still don't understand how you guys are defending this.

if anything the warhammer needs to get bigger, it's got a bit too much firepower for it's size.
and the griffin is a jumpjet bomber. which it seems in pgi's book makes it deserving of being oversized.
much like trebuchet and blackjack.
and that's fine. you gotta abuse those jumpjets.

[Steve Pryde]

FupDup, on 14 July 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

And yet, if you compare a Locust to a Jenner, it's almost double the size. Consistently inconsistent...

20t vs 35t. Think about it.

[Juodas Varnas]

Mazzyplz, on 15 July 2016 - 03:21 AM, said:

if anything the warhammer needs to get bigger, it's got a bit too much firepower for it's size.
and the griffin is a jumpjet bomber. which it seems in pgi's book makes it deserving of being oversized.
much like trebuchet and blackjack.
and that's fine. you gotta abuse those jumpjets.

Also, that comparison compares a Griffing with both external mounted missile launchers and a Warhammer without any (others show him with the smallest ones, being SRM-2s).
I'd like to see a comparison of both WITHOUT the missile launchers or with at least the same size launchers.

[DJ Mitchell]

Mcgral18, on 14 July 2016 - 06:40 PM, said:

Oh look, the same result!



Still don't understand how you guys are defending this.

Could you make a comparison picture including a 35T Panther or Wolfhound and a 85T Battlemaster also ?

This way we would have light to assault scale with a 15T difference to each other, all rather broad or boxy and humanoid.


Considering the volume scaling is correct. Then it can only be considered to be a "first step" balance wise.

While 15T difference seems to be not a big difference volume wise, it should have a bigger impact on mobility,agility,accel,deaccel ?

So a revision of all quirks from light to assault class would be neccessary then.

[Bishop Steiner]

Juodas Varnas, on 15 July 2016 - 03:54 AM, said:

Also, that comparison compares a Griffing with both external mounted missile launchers and a Warhammer without any (others show him with the smallest ones, being SRM-2s).
I'd like to see a comparison of both WITHOUT the missile launchers or with at least the same size launchers.

that would counteract their agenda... the argument being "The Meta Griffin needs missiles, the Meta Hammer does not!".

So again, going to a totally skewed and subjective basis, which is the same as no base at all, especially once the Quirks Turn again, and the meta shifts...then what? We rescale everything again according to who is underperforming at that time?

And so goes the never ending circle of myopathy created by those "who know better".

"Arbitrary" tends to be the term used by those who are not happy with the concept of unbiased. Unbiased and unmoving, on the other hand is the mandatory foundation to actualyl build Balance.

We have never had balance because we've had too much subjectivity, too much moving parts. People will adapt, or move on. I'm not inclined to shed a tear, either way.

Sigilum Sanctum, on 14 July 2016 - 10:06 PM, said:

There it is, there it is I ******* knew it would come out sooner than later. You can keep Battletech, this game isn't Battletech. Its BASED on Battletech but it cannot realistically emulate its damage mechanics or pratically anything else because that **** is all chance based on dice rolls and RNGesus. If that's what you want this game to be, then I'll leave in a bloody heart beat.

OK. Bye.

You see, when kneejerk and reactionary is how you respond to things? You are a detriment to the process, not a boon. So, see ya.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 15 July 2016 - 06:07 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Juodas Varnas, on 15 July 2016 - 03:54 AM, said:

Also, that comparison compares a Griffing with both external mounted missile launchers and a Warhammer without any (others show him with the smallest ones, being SRM-2s).
I'd like to see a comparison of both WITHOUT the missile launchers or with at least the same size launchers.

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

[Cy Mitchell]

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

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

Even I agree with this. The tiny little 35 ton Lights, like the Jenners, which had always been as small as a 20T and are now just a bit smaller than the 40T Mediums did get screwed in getting larger.

But that is only because of their previous size that players became accustomed to. They never should have been that small in the first place unless they only weighed 25Tons. PGI finally corrected a mistake that was being exploited by the players who used the sizing error to their great advantage.

It is then understandable that anyone who had their favorite Mech lose some of its advantage is using every possible argument, no matter how illogical, to justify their disappointment and outrage.

[Mcgral18]

Rampage, on 15 July 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

It is then understandable that anyone who had their favorite Mech lose some of its advantage is using every possible argument, no matter how illogical, to justify their disappointment and outrage.

Some just want Lights not to be trash, and Meds not "55 ton mech size" aka Assault size but slimmer

[FupDup]

Steve Pryde, on 15 July 2016 - 03:50 AM, said:

20t vs 35t. Think about it.

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.

Edited by FupDup, 15 July 2016 - 10:37 AM.

[Deathlike]

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.

Translation: PGI's volume scaling is ironically equally arbitrary.

[ScarecrowES]

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 fully endorse the overall results the rescale achieved, but I'm still not convinced about the Locust. There's something off about the scale comparison PGI has shown us, and I don't have a Locust to do comparisons in-engine.

[FupDup]

ScarecrowES, on 15 July 2016 - 10:39 AM, said:

I fully endorse the overall results the rescale achieved, but I'm still not convinced about the Locust. There's something off about the scale comparison PGI has shown us, and I don't have a Locust to do comparisons in-engine.

Here is McGral's cutout of Lolcust vs. Atlas:



Using the eyeball test, it looks like I could fit at least 4-7 Lolcusts inside of the volume of that Fatlas. In this example the size per ton increased on an almost linear scale, and yet we can compare things like mediums vs. heavies (e.g. Griffin vs. Warhammer case study) and see that the size increase is not even close to as drastic.

In other words, it's not even consistent like it was hailed to be.

Edited by FupDup, 15 July 2016 - 10:43 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

ScarecrowES, on 15 July 2016 - 10:39 AM, said:

I fully endorse the overall results the rescale achieved, but I'm still not convinced about the Locust. There's something off about the scale comparison PGI has shown us, and I don't have a Locust to do comparisons in-engine.

this part I can agree with fully. Not sure about the 25 tonners, either, fully.

[Revis Volek]

Belacose, on 15 July 2016 - 02:23 AM, said:

Not to alienate the lot of y'all even further than previously, but...

I'm with Bishop Steiner on this particular polarizing issue in spite of his fed up crankiness due to the same from those opposed. Don't expect him to be a saint when y'all are anything but.

If the newly re-scaled Locust stops moving even a scrub potato such as myself can nail it. Speed should play more of a factor in not getting hit. However, mediums are not lights and the scales are now becoming more based on actual math. If one doesn't like it then pilot heavies and pretend you're in a medium. Or jump in a portly Clan Hunchback, dance around and pretend you're an air plane like me.

Also keep in mind, as Bishop previously pointed out before last patch, the sizes you see displayed in the idle lobby are not necessarily indicative of true 'in the field' scale. Appears several conveniently glance past that little tidbit without it ever really sinking in.

Ok now, opinions aside, who needs a hug? Because free hugs are on the menu and 'yours truly' the fry cook is only too happy to oblige.

Even the pre rescale lolcaust died to a one shot when standing still. for that matter many lights especially IS will die if they stand still.


The rescale is not to blame or to thank for that feature.

[ScarecrowES]

FupDup, on 15 July 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

Here is McGral's cutout of Lolcust vs. Atlas:



Using the eyeball test, it looks like I could fit at least 4-7 Lolcusts inside of the volume of that Fatlas. In this example the size per ton increased on an almost linear scale, and yet we can compare things like mediums vs. heavies (e.g. Griffin vs. Warhammer case study) and see that the size increase is not even close to as drastic.

In other words, it's not even consistent like it was hailed to be.

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.

[ComradeHavoc]

Juodas Varnas, on 15 July 2016 - 02:05 AM, said:

ALRIGHT, I WILL

IS MEDIUM MECHS ARE TALLER BECAUSE MOST OF THEM HAVE HUMANOID BODY SHAPES.
THE CRAB, WHICH IS A NON-HUMANOID IS MEDIUM MECH IS PRETTY SHORT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT HUMANOID!

IF YOU WANT REALLY SHORT IS MEDIUMS, GET MORE HYPE FOR THE SCORPION!

CAPITAL LETTERS!!!

They're never adding quads.

[Juodas Varnas]

ComradeHavoc, on 15 July 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

They're never adding quads.

[ScarecrowES]

Everyone deserves a beacon of hope to light their way. Even if that light is shining from the entryway of a circus tent.