221 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

InspectorG, on 19 March 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

No. A mech's volume has little impact on you aligning your reticle over an area and tallying damage.

FPS =/= real life.

You are correct about weight/surface area...in real life.

He's not even correct there. Tank design prioritizes the size of the vehicle from angles it is most expected to be attacked from, and volume does not necessarily scale with mass (i.e. Abrams has a dense Depleted Uranium armor layer and that contributes to the tank being more massive for its size than others).

[Khobai]

Quote

Abrams has a dense Depleted Uranium armor layer and that contributes to the tank being more massive for its size than others

but all tanks using depleted uranium armor are going to have the same approximate density regardless of size. so yes volume does scale with mass when density remains the same. that is an immutable property of matter; you cannot change the laws of the universe as much as you seem to want to.

in battletech, which is much more consistent than real life because all mechs are made out of the same basic materials, the density of mechs is going to be relatively consistent regardless of size. which means their volume will scale linearly with their weight.

an atlas is made out of the same exact myomer, materials, composites, alloys, etc... as a jenner. it just uses more of them because its a bigger mech. so the atlas' density is going to be roughly the same as the jenner's. As such the atlas should only be 3 times the size of a jenner.


the point being even by realistic standards, the atlas is way too big compared to light mechs. but realism should really have no basis in MWO anyway. its a game. its game balance that dictates assaults should be smaller because having them be as big as they are now makes them die much faster than they should.

Edited by Khobai, 19 March 2017 - 03:02 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 19 March 2017 - 02:32 PM, said:

but all tanks using depleted uranium armor are going to have the same approximate density regardless of size. so yes volume does scale with mass.

in battletech, which is much more consistent than real life, because all mechs are made out of the same basic materials. So their density is going to be relatively consistent regardless of size. which means their volume will scale linearly with their weight.

BattleTech leaves the details of how a 'Mech is built obfuscated. Some 'Mechs are known for being tough, for instance; it could be that's because they incorporated some other form of robusness into the design beyond the armor and that's why it weights what it does for its size.

So, no.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 19 March 2017 - 02:42 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

So, no.

and youre wrong. all you have to do is look at the mech design process in the mech lab.

we know all mech structures are made out of the same material. and the weight is consistent from mech to mech. jenner std structure is the same as atlas std structure. and jenner endosteel structure is the same as atlas endosteel structure... the weight savings % is exactly the same.

we know all mech armor is made out of the same material. and the weight is consistent from mech to mech. jenner std armor is the same as atlas std armor. the same armor can be used on any mech regardless of the mech.

all mechs use the same engines, a jenner uses the same 300 engine that an atlas uses. theyre swappable.

all parts are interchangeable on battlemechs. you can swap parts from one IS mech to another IS mech. so nothing is being designed special. its all being designed to the same standards.

so yes its reasonable to assume all mechs are designed the same way regardless of if theyre light or assault and thats how theyre all able to accomodate the same exact weapons, equipment, structure, armor, engines, etc...

thats simply how it is in battletech. so the assumption that all mechs are the same relative density makes a lot of sense based on that. whether its an atlas or a jenner, structure is always 10% of the mech's weight. max armor is always 20% of the mech's weight (double the structure). an engine is generally 20% of the mech's weight. so the density is the same.

since the density is the same the volume should scale proportionally with the weight. so an atlas should only be 3 times the size of a jenner.

Edited by Khobai, 19 March 2017 - 03:01 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Khobai, on 19 March 2017 - 02:52 PM, said:

and youre wrong. all you have to do is look at the mech design process in the mech lab.

we know all mech structures are made out of the same material. and the weight is consistent from mech to mech.

we know all mech armor is made out of the same material. and the weight is consistent from mech to mech.

all mechs use the same engines, and the engines all give the same performance to weight ratio.

all parts are interchangeable on battlemechs. you can swap parts from one IS mech to another IS mech. so nothing is being designed special. its all being designed to the same standards.

How do you account for quirks? Hmm?

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 19 March 2017 - 02:52 PM, said:

and youre wrong. all you have to do is look at the mech design process in the mech lab.

The 'MechLab does not cover all aspects of 'Mech construction, I am not wrong, and you shouting it doesn't make it so.

[Mystere]

Bush Hopper, on 19 March 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

Nope, but I am a realist. If you expect a clean, polished design from PGI and throw a tantrum each time you do not get it, then you are delusional and a prime candidate for a stomach ulcer. So dry your tears, belt up your diapers and accept that you are simply dealing with the wrong company if that's what you crave because it seems they are simply incapable to deliver such a thing - be it because of skill power or manpower. Whatever...

On top of that, there were much more severe problems in the skill tree. If you need to work yourself up because it is not a "good clean design", then you simply want to throw a fit at any cost. Which brings us back full circle to being a spoilt brat

LOL! I'm neither the one who started whining about people expressing a legitimate concern, whined about the whining, nor the one whining that change for change's sake did not take place.

Edited by Mystere, 19 March 2017 - 04:33 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 19 March 2017 - 10:44 AM, said:

...

The real problem is those that think that change for the sake of change is beneficial, but utterly lack any ability to percieve the outcome of what that change will actually transpire to be.

Unfortunately most people's ability to predict the future is pretty bad.

Granted with PGI we have the past performance to use as a gauge, but, I didn't see anything overly 'traumatic' about the new system as it was.

I've seen even more complex, heck the skill tree for Path of Exile makes PGI's skill new skill tree look like kindergarten.

I seriously doubt it would be as bad as everyone was panicking about.

But I do agree with comments about PGI's inconsistent/lack of communication on the process.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 19 March 2017 - 05:40 PM.

[InspectorG]

Yeonne Greene, on 19 March 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

He's not even correct there. Tank design prioritizes the size of the vehicle from angles it is most expected to be attacked from, and volume does not necessarily scale with mass (i.e. Abrams has a dense Depleted Uranium armor layer and that contributes to the tank being more massive for its size than others).

I was thinking he based it upon PGI's assumption that all mechs had the same overall density of 'stuff' inside as a gloss to simplify the math. Hence their decision to use volume.

[Marius Romanis]

Skill Tree was better than what we have for people like me with modules in its pts 2.0 form.

The mech ****** who have no modules do have a point though, they pay pgi's bills.

All pre-existing mechs experience (that is locked up in basic/elite/mastery status) needs to convert directly to SP node's already available to unlock, not at a direct XP ratio but slightly Higher, someone was saying 80 nodes gets you the same skills as mastery ?

ie rough example, basic'd mech gets 25 ? SP nodes to unlock at no cbills cost (but the xp that was used on basicing the mech is used to unlock thos 25 SP nodes.

Elited mechs get 55 ? mastered mechs get 80 ?

The Xp for mastery gets used to obtain 80 SP nodes worth of cbill free unlocks, then after that it all returns to the PTS 2.0 cbill costs.

People who bought Modules since mech con must get full CBILL refund on those modules.

All modules prior to mech con have to be converted to a "historic module cbills" Slush fund for SP node unlocking.

(Is PGI capable to tracking when modules were purchased ?? , if not all modules must get full cbill refund)

I told people less than 7 days after MecCon ST would be June, it looking possible.

Edited by CadoAzazel, 19 March 2017 - 06:37 PM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Khobai, on 19 March 2017 - 02:52 PM, said:

and youre wrong. all you have to do is look at the mech design process in the mech lab.

we know all mech structures are made out of the same material. and the weight is consistent from mech to mech. jenner std structure is the same as atlas std structure. and jenner endosteel structure is the same as atlas endosteel structure... the weight savings % is exactly the same.

we know all mech armor is made out of the same material. and the weight is consistent from mech to mech. jenner std armor is the same as atlas std armor. the same armor can be used on any mech regardless of the mech.

all mechs use the same engines, a jenner uses the same 300 engine that an atlas uses. theyre swappable.

all parts are interchangeable on battlemechs. you can swap parts from one IS mech to another IS mech. so nothing is being designed special. its all being designed to the same standards.

so yes its reasonable to assume all mechs are designed the same way regardless of if theyre light or assault and thats how theyre all able to accomodate the same exact weapons, equipment, structure, armor, engines, etc...

thats simply how it is in battletech. so the assumption that all mechs are the same relative density makes a lot of sense based on that. whether its an atlas or a jenner, structure is always 10% of the mech's weight. max armor is always 20% of the mech's weight (double the structure). an engine is generally 20% of the mech's weight. so the density is the same.

since the density is the same the volume should scale proportionally with the weight. so an atlas should only be 3 times the size of a jenner.

thats not true in all ways ...the Mechlab is more a easy part for the Videogames, in BT Lore, you can nothing swap parts of a Mech to another(thats the Big different to the Omnimechs) many Mechs have very special parts and Weapons from many different manufacturers.In Lore , the Mechs designed around his special Parts.The construction Rules very easy and Abstracted

for Marauder

It also originally carried eleven and a half tons of special Valiant Lamellor armor which was less massive and superior at distributing kinetic and thermal energy than other standard armor types. As the knowledge for its manufacture was lost though, many Marauders became a patchwork quilt as sections were damaged and had to be replaced.

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 19 March 2017 - 06:49 PM.

[Sunstruck]

The skill tree needed to be revised, and the engine change needed to be tested.

Would you rather have had all your light mechs useless with a broken patch (accel, decel).

You should thank the people that play test and call out the major mistakes before it goes live, its not the play testers fault that PGI chooses to break parts of the game that weren't broken to begin with (accel, decel).

You guys remember how the minimap got broken right last year?

So ya, its not the play testers making your life bad, its the play testers actually bringing common sence to the changes out of nowhere PGI likes to implement.

[Dimento Graven]

InspectorG, on 19 March 2017 - 11:24 AM, said:

Hate to break it to you, but look at the damage scores post match and tell me the average player in Solo clears a million Cbills in an hour or two.

I used to play 3 hours a night and easily clear millions with Premium Time from my mechpack buys.

At 5 matches per hour, 150k per match = 750k cbills per hour without using Heros. With my X-5 or Invasion Dire? Millions were little problem.

Wow... Seriously? Only 150k per match? What's your average damage? Less than 200 per match?

I would HOPE the 'average' player is doing much better than that.

Tonight playing for roughly 2.5 hours I earned ~5.5 million. That includes a few incredibly bad matches where I put myself in the wrong place at the wrong time and got face stomped by 8 'mechs.

Quote

I play maybe 3 hours a week now and between being rusty and leveling up the select few mechs ill keep post new Skill Tree, i can tell you, your 'Authority' is either over stated, or wrongly assumed.

Or maybe our levels of play are just that different. If you're only getting 150k per match, that's less than half my typical 'take home' at the end of a match.

Quote

New player or me being rusty in an unbasic'd Brawler mech(lets say i really suck): 15 matches at 80k per match = 1.2M Cbills per WEEK.

2 WEEKS for a 3M Cbill Module?

New Locust?

How much is a Heavy Clan mech or upgraded IS Heavy?

Then knock the rust off. When your damage and match score go up so does the profit.

[Marius Romanis]

Surprised forum "moderators" haven't closed this thread for "being hostile to pgi" yet.

Edited by CadoAzazel, 19 March 2017 - 07:23 PM.

[InspectorG]

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2017 - 07:13 PM, said:

I would HOPE the 'average' player is doing much better than that.

Then knock the rust off. When your damage and match score go up so does the profit.

How often do you drop Solo? Im fairly sure most players dont clear 150k per match.

Knocking the rust off but coming off a hiatus. Have very hot/cold matches. Varies from a 230k match in my 4MPL TDK to a 80k match in a KDK-5 where i assumed my team was gonna do X but did Y.

Lost my twitch and positioning is off, but i now play less often and its not a priority. It will come back however slow it does.

But who cares about me? Im telling you, the average Puglandia players isnt making nearly what you think.

[Dimento Graven]

InspectorG, on 19 March 2017 - 07:24 PM, said:

How often do you drop Solo? Im fairly sure most players dont clear 150k per match.

Most of the time actually.

The scores I see are, NORMALLY, most people on the winning side having 300-400 damage and high match scores.

I would guess that most of these people are seeing well over 200k per match. Which means in the first 4 matches or so, they'll have made a million Cbills.

If you're winning more than losing you should be earning quickly. I think I lowballed my earlier estimate, I recall purchasing a couple modules because I wanted to play a dual gauss MDD, and apparently didn't have a spare set of clan gauss modules lying around.

Quote

Knocking the rust off but coming off a hiatus. Have very hot/cold matches. Varies from a 230k match in my 4MPL TDK to a 80k match in a KDK-5 where i assumed my team was gonna do X but did Y.

Lost my twitch and positioning is off, but i now play less often and its not a priority. It will come back however slow it does.

Then it kind of sounds like we agree, it'll get better, as you re-familiarize yourself with the game.

Quote

But who cares about me? Im telling you, the average Puglandia players isnt making nearly what you think.

So... You're saying PGI should scrap, continue delaying something that may just make this game better, because your idea of the 'average' player (no insult here, just pointing out we have two different ideas on the 'average' player) will find it too hard?

If true, I don't think I like that.

[InspectorG]

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2017 - 07:55 PM, said:

The scores I see are, NORMALLY, most people on the winning side having 300-400 damage and high match scores.

I would guess that most of these people are seeing well over 200k per match. Which means in the first 4 matches or so, they'll have made a million Cbills.

If you're winning more than losing you should be earning quickly. I think I lowballed my earlier estimate, I recall purchasing a couple modules because I wanted to play a dual gauss MDD, and apparently didn't have a spare set of clan gauss modules lying around.

Then it kind of sounds like we agree, it'll get better, as you re-familiarize yourself with the game.

So... You're saying PGI should scrap, continue delaying something that may just make this game better, because your idea of the 'average' player (no insult here, just pointing out we have two different ideas on the 'average' player) will find it too hard?

If true, I don't think I like that.

The scores you usually see? When do you drop Solo. I find earlier than 11PM EST it gets pretty derpy.

I started counting how many sub-200 damage players are on teams, post match. There are MANY matches where i see 5-7 sub-200s.

Trouble is getting win-streaks. Yeah, it all averages out over the very long term but you get nights of 10 loss streaks. Even weeks of loss streaks.

I doubt players average 200k without Premium+Hero.

After my last 3 month hiatus, took about 6 weeks of constant playing to git my (average) gud back.

I do NOT want PGI to scrap the new Skill Tree. I want PGI to release a Tree that sets a better baseline, doesnt hinder IS-quirk heavy mechs, doesnt advantage quirkless mechs, doesnt force such a cost for consumable/ JJ use/ radar dep, has a more meaningful Sensor tree, or a structure tree that costs too much for Lights.

Basically, i dont want another Rescale.

Economically - well Cbill costs for all the new shiny tech, Skill Tree, Consumable use, Reduced Premium in mechspacks will likely out-pace the 'no more 3 mech rule' for the skill tree.

Casuals may not be making enough per match to keep up.

Im not saying its too hard, MWO is a hard game, and i appreciate the school of hard knocks as a former wrestler and kickboxer(amateur).

[dario03]

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2017 - 07:55 PM, said:

Most of the time actually.

The scores I see are, NORMALLY, most people on the winning side having 300-400 damage and high match scores.

I would guess that most of these people are seeing well over 200k per match. Which means in the first 4 matches or so, they'll have made a million Cbills.

If you're winning more than losing you should be earning quickly. I think I lowballed my earlier estimate, I recall purchasing a couple modules because I wanted to play a dual gauss MDD, and apparently didn't have a spare set of clan gauss modules lying around.

Then it kind of sounds like we agree, it'll get better, as you re-familiarize yourself with the game.

So... You're saying PGI should scrap, continue delaying something that may just make this game better, because your idea of the 'average' player (no insult here, just pointing out we have two different ideas on the 'average' player) will find it too hard?

If true, I don't think I like that.

Lot of different things go into how much cbills you make. And while a 3-400dmg game can pay 200k+ it doesn't always. Without cbill boosts like heroes or premium time you can pretty easily earn less than 150k per match with 3-400 damage and a win. Actually its not that uncommon to make less than 150k on a win with over 400 damage, I skimmed some screenshots real quick and found some 5-600 damage that were just over or under 150k and one 550dmg that only paid 127k.

Edited by dario03, 19 March 2017 - 08:20 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

dario03, on 19 March 2017 - 08:14 PM, said:

Lot of different things go into how much cbills you make. But without cbill boosts like heroes or premium time you can pretty easily earn less than 150k per match with 3-400 damage and a win. Actually its not that uncommon to make less than 150k on a win with over 400 damage.

Wow, I can't think of ever seeing below 200k+ when I had close to 400 damage.

I'm not saying it hasn't happened to me, but I can't remember ever seeing it happen.

But, maybe it's how I play:

I tend to stay with my lance (cbill bonus)
I tend to target what I'm shooting at (pressing R), allowing others to see/target/hit (cbill bonus)
I tend to use UAV's (cbill bonus)
I tend to use strikes (damage/cbill bonus)
I tend to try and focus on targets other people are targeting and shooting at (cbill bonus)
Etc., etc.

There is a style of play that results in these bonuses and they DO add up, considerably, at the end of a match.

The other thing I do differently, that I strongly believe makes a difference in my accumulation of cbills is, I very rarely, if ever, sell anything from my inventory.

You'd think the result would be my bank account would slowly deplete itself, but there is actually a point where you've accumulated so many extra of everything, when you're equipping a 'mech you never (or at least extremely rarely) have to buy anything.

Keeping in mind everything you sell, you have sell at HALF what you'd have to pay to buy it new, it ends up having a significant impact.

There's times I've completely refit 'mechs and except for having to pay for things you can't stockpile (like the various upgrades for artemis, FF, endo-steel) I've had zero 'out of pocket' costs.

I have to be doing something right, I've got nearly a half-billion in cbills, and my bank account has been that way, even in spite of only playing 8 to 10 hours a week...

[dario03]

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2017 - 08:26 PM, said:

Wow, I can't think of ever seeing below 200k+ when I had close to 400 damage.

I'm not saying it hasn't happened to me, but I can't remember ever seeing it happen.

But, maybe it's how I play:

I tend to stay with my lance (cbill bonus)
I tend to target what I'm shooting at (pressing R), allowing others to see/target/hit (cbill bonus)
I tend to use UAV's (cbill bonus)
I tend to use strikes (damage/cbill bonus)
I tend to try and focus on targets other people are targeting and shooting at (cbill bonus)
Etc., etc.

There is a style of play that results in these bonuses and they DO add up, considerably, at the end of a match.

The other thing I do differently, that I strongly believe makes a difference in my accumulation of cbills is, I very rarely, if ever, sell anything from my inventory.

You'd think the result would be my bank account would slowly deplete itself, but there is actually a point where you've accumulated so many extra of everything, when you're equipping a 'mech you never (or at least extremely rarely) have to buy anything.

Keeping in mind everything you sell, you have sell at HALF what you'd have to pay to buy it new, it ends up having a significant impact.

There's times I've completely refit 'mechs and except for having to pay for things you can't stockpile (like the various upgrades for artemis, FF, endo-steel) I've had zero 'out of pocket' costs.

I have to be doing something right, I've got nearly a half-billion in cbills, and my bank account has been that way, even in spite of only playing 8 to 10 hours a week...

I do all that too. But some times you just dont get paid. I've also had low damage matches that paid absurdly high. Start keeping track, you probably will see the low pay coming up. But even if you dont I would bet the average does.