73 replies to this topic

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

Sjorpha, on 02 June 2017 - 09:26 AM, said:

I suggested a volume based formula with a linear density increase from heavy to light, so nope that's not arbitrary, it would generate a scale for each mech according to the density at that tonnage, which would give a consistent relation in size between mechs.

Now obviously you'd have to decide a starting point for your scaling and how much more dense a 20 ton mech should be than a 100 ton mech, there is no way around having to decide the base parameters for whatever formula you use, but the scaling of each mech would not be arbitrary.

You seem to just be randomly trolling though.

It's arbitrary in the sense that trying to rationalize scaling lighter mechs smaller on the basis that they're more dense is illogical. There is no reason why they would be more dense. You're just trying to explain away why they should get special treatment.

[Pjwned]

still no actual evidence, on 02 June 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

The patch notes at the time they introduced the new scaling said there were three factors, and the third of those factors explicitly said something like "we modified the scaling based on our judgement".



I guess that was their position at the time.



Some Mechs (eg. Firestarter) are way bigger than they should be based on their tonnage, volume and surface area.

Pjwned, on 02 June 2017 - 06:52 AM, said:

Where's the evidence that they did that? Because that's pretty much the opposite of what they said they were doing and as far as I can tell each mech is about the size it should be.

I wouldn't be surprised if that did happen but I've seen nothing presented (other than some speculation) to suggest major discrepancies in mech size.

Being buttmangled about 35 tonners getting bigger is not evidence of that by the way, since some people seem to think it is.

Edited by Pjwned, 02 June 2017 - 08:36 PM.

[Requiemking]

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 02 June 2017 - 06:31 PM, said:

It's arbitrary in the sense that trying to rationalize scaling lighter mechs smaller on the basis that they're more dense is illogical. There is no reason why they would be more dense. You're just trying to explain away why they should get special treatment.

To be honest I actually would prefer if they simply shrank all the enlarged mechs back to their original sizes/movement profiles while leaving the shrunk mechs like the Dragon untouched. It was the enlarging of mechs that screwed with balance, especially since the two weightclasses that were hardest hit by it were the ones the IS happened to hold dominance in, namely the Light and Heavy categories.

[Athom83]

Requiemking, on 02 June 2017 - 08:17 PM, said:

To be honest I actually would prefer if they simply shrank all the enlarged mechs back to their original sizes/movement profiles while leaving the shrunk mechs like the Dragon untouched. It was the enlarging of mechs that screwed with balance, especially since the two weightclasses that were hardest hit by it were the ones the IS happened to hold dominance in, namely the Light and Heavy categories.

No. The evidence has already been laid out on why they grew taller. You having problems with them is a you thing. Right now Grasshoppers and Black Knights, the two you are saying are bad because of their size, are honestly some of the strongest IS mechs in that range.

[Requiemking]

Athom83, on 02 June 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

No. The evidence has already been laid out on why they grew taller. You having problems with them is a you thing. Right now Grasshoppers and Black Knights, the two you are saying are bad because of their size, are honestly some of the strongest IS mechs in that range.

I never said the Grasshopper was bad, in fact I said that it skated by on it's high mounts. The Knight has seen something of a resurgence since Skill tree dropped, but I'd give it about another week or so before it returns to obsolescence and most players go back to the previous metahounds.

[FupDup]

It would be easier to accept the massive size increases of light gundams if there had been some actual compensation given at the same time.

Also, the resized mechs were stretched out in all three dimensions, not just height.

[SkyHammyr]

Bud Crue, on 02 June 2017 - 06:40 AM, said:

But then I thought of all the times they fixed something, then realized they actually broke something, then let Russ get on twitter justifying whatever they broke, and then half-assed fixing it (minimap being most obvious example to pop into mind)...

Oh, yeah... that Minimap.
That was a comedy of errors.

[Pjwned]

FupDup, on 02 June 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

It would be easier to accept the massive size increases of light gundams if there had been some actual compensation given at the same time.

Also, the resized mechs were stretched out in all three dimensions, not just height.

There's a difference between arguing for improvements for light mechs after the fact and bitching about the rescale being done wrong with zero evidence behind the claim.

One of those arguments is mind numbingly stupid, and the other isn't.

[PyckenZot]

Kiran Yagami, on 02 June 2017 - 05:26 AM, said:

Fixing mistakes is adapting. That's also the way of the online multiplayer game.

True, they shouldn't have made the LCT so small.

[Reza Malin]

CK16, on 02 June 2017 - 04:32 AM, said:

No Req....as many have pointed out to you time and time again....the scaling is not a mistake....Scaling was horrid before...A Jenner would not be remotely close to the Locust....or the Firestarter to the Commando....Fact is, light pilots who ***** about how they csnt compete now, well they were just abusing the micro scale and clustered hitboxes to survive. Also relying on a very under scaled mech in oh I don't know the Oxide? I

If you are a light mech getting shot at way to much, you are not playing lights correctly and maybe need to learn the tactic of break contact and hit and run instead of trying to dance with anything larger then you...

Great answer. My thoughts exactly.

Not sure why light/light medium pilots expect to be able to mix it up with heavies and assaults with equal levels of risk.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

the Visual of the mechs is arbitrary !!!its Fantasy ...all Measuments based of its stupid ..and a Human in a Knight amore is not really bigger als nude...take 2 Bags , with same size , in the one put a Ac10 +ammunition ,and in the other 4 Heatsinks ,and a Small laser ...same size , not same weight and Density ..the rescaling is stupid to sized slow Big targets up.many Mechs habve Mounted Weapons, that other density ,Volume and Survace as with Weapons build in the Torso ...and by the mechs like Centurion ...Who is the Transportsystem for the Ammunition to the Arm ? the arms to small for build in it!!!

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 03 June 2017 - 01:43 AM.

[Cold Darkness]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 03 June 2017 - 01:41 AM, said:

the Visual of the mechs is arbitrary !!!its Fantasy ...all Measuments based of its stupid ..and a Human in a Knight amore is not really bigger als nude...take 2 Bags , with same size , in the one put a Ac10 +ammunition ,and in the other 4 Heatsinks ,and a Small laser ...same size , not same weight and Density ..the rescaling is stupid to sized slow Big targets up.many Mechs habve Mounted Weapons, that other density ,Volume and Survace as with Weapons build in the Torso ...and by the mechs like Centurion ...Who is the Transportsystem for the Ammunition to the Arm ? the arms to small for build in it!!!

you would also need to counterbalance said density imbalances on your mech to keep it from falling over.
just in case you dont know what i am writing: your logic can only apply if the mechs only come in stock form and are not adjustable in the mechlab. as soon as there is any kind of adjustment on the mech, there is weight that needs to be shifted, invalidating your argument.

Edited by Cold Darkness, 03 June 2017 - 02:28 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Requiemking, on 02 June 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure if they playtested any of the changes they made they would have pulled it back for "further work".

Ah, and here is another core issue with so many problems we have. They don't. And even if they do they can only playtest anything in their tier-5 environment.

[Dino Might]

PhoenixFire55, on 02 June 2017 - 01:46 PM, said:

A 20t mech shouldn't be any more dense than a 100t mech. Or any more dense than a 1000t mech. Because there is no point in leaving empty space within your mech, you maximize density, thus decreasing the volume, i.e. making your mech a smaller target. Anything else is counter productive at best and again makes zero sense.

There are reasons to make larger objects less dense, especially if they need to traverse the ground. Pressure = Force / Area. You will have a given amount of force based on mass and gravity, that is applied across the entire footprint of the mech. In order for it not to sink into the ground, especially in muck, you will want a large surface area for its feet, because you need to reduce pressure on the ground to prevent sinking down into it.

Now consider this issue of pressure on joints, actuators, and the like. You most definitely will want to make the more massive objects less dense, given a fixed material tensile strength.

But ya know...engineering is not realistic...amiright?

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Cold Darkness, on 03 June 2017 - 02:27 AM, said:

you would also need to counterbalance said density imbalances on your mech to keep it from falling over.
just in case you dont know what i am writing: your logic can only apply if the mechs only come in stock form and are not adjustable in the mechlab. as soon as there is any kind of adjustment on the mech, there is weight that needs to be shifted, invalidating your argument.

Invalid Argument ...the Mechlab use nor realistic weights or real physical spaces and Components ,its pure Fivction, you can build the Weapon in the Torso or Mounted of it (Shadowhawk,Thunderbolt) ..the Only aspect for mechs is the Visual aspect , you can the Mechlab use and all put in in endless Variations , and can make the Mechs visual as Cubes, or Spheres, or 2DPaperdoll silhuettes you can all mechs give the same size, can make the lights with 1 m height or 100m Assaults ...
or you can use realistic Military Equipment for sclaing ...with this is stupid , to make a 65t Mech half sized from a 70 t mech ,and the 70 t mech equal sized to a 100 t mech...the size (locust to small)is ok ,many others to big...take the Pilot and the Cockpit as real Sized Component and build the mech around is the only good Aspect

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 03 June 2017 - 05:49 AM.

[Athom83]

Dino Might, on 03 June 2017 - 04:35 AM, said:

There are reasons to make larger objects less dense, especially if they need to traverse the ground. Pressure = Force / Area. You will have a given amount of force based on mass and gravity, that is applied across the entire footprint of the mech. In order for it not to sink into the ground, especially in muck, you will want a large surface area for its feet, because you need to reduce pressure on the ground to prevent sinking down into it.

Now consider this issue of pressure on joints, actuators, and the like. You most definitely will want to make the more massive objects less dense, given a fixed material tensile strength.

But ya know...engineering is not realistic...amiright?

You would be correct, except for few things;
1) That mainly applies to ground preassure, IE the size of the feet.
1.5) Making the feet larger doesn't make the mech less dense. It just gives it bigger feet.
2) While "as dence" as a smaller object, the larger object already has an increase in size for those joints/actuators/etc.
3) It doesn't take into account support given by mynomer musculature.
4) We don't know the actual "tensile strength" of the various Armors and Materials that compose the structure (Endo-steel, XT, FT 10X, etc).
4.5) Tensile strengths between mechs are somewhat different as they use different materials for structure and armor from mech to mech (except for "endo-steel").

Edited by Athom83, 03 June 2017 - 02:55 PM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Dino Might, on 03 June 2017 - 04:35 AM, said:

There are reasons to make larger objects less dense, especially if they need to traverse the ground. Pressure = Force / Area. You will have a given amount of force based on mass and gravity, that is applied across the entire footprint of the mech. In order for it not to sink into the ground, especially in muck, you will want a large surface area for its feet, because you need to reduce pressure on the ground to prevent sinking down into it.

Now consider this issue of pressure on joints, actuators, and the like. You most definitely will want to make the more massive objects less dense, given a fixed material tensile strength.

But ya know...engineering is not realistic...amiright?

Consider a simple model with a cubic "mech". Lets say a 20t mech is a cube with a side L and volume of L³. Given the equal density across tonnage spectra a 100t mech would be a cube with a volume of 5L³. The side of the 100t cube mech would be ~1.7L. Since the force is proportional to mass the ratio of pressure these two mechs would apply is an inverse ratio of ground surface, i.e. L² to 2.9L². Thus if you make a "feet" surface of a 100t mech three times the surface of a 20t mech (which doesn't seem unrealistic at all since linear size would only be ~1.7 times longer) two mechs in question will apply same pressure. Obviously same thing goes for hips and joints and whatnot. Assault mechs already have bigger ankles, knees, hips etc.

That model obviously talks only about mechs in static, dynamic forces and pressures are a way more complicated issue, but since myometers and other BT tech isn't exactly real there is no point in speculating further. Suffice to say, there are no indications in BT "lore" that mechs have different densities, nor is there any real reason for them to as indicated by this simple example.

[Sjorpha]

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 02 June 2017 - 06:31 PM, said:

It's arbitrary in the sense that trying to rationalize scaling lighter mechs smaller on the basis that they're more dense is illogical. There is no reason why they would be more dense. You're just trying to explain away why they should get special treatment.

Good for the game and balance are good enough reasons in my opinion, it was primarily light mechs that got obseleted by the volume based scaling, before the rescale all the lights had significantly higher density to their tonnage. I think bringing some of that back would be good for making lights less underpowered and I think it would feel right too.

There is no special objective reason for any design choice in games ever, it all essentially comes down to opinions, but you can make systems that feel good for as many people as possible, and that successfully suspends disbelief for as large a segment of human psychology as possible.

In my opinion there is a very big difference between "arbitrary" as in arbitrarily specifying each individual element in a design, and "arbitrary" as in designing your own internal logic for your game world. It's a bit dishonest to not make that distinction since arbitrary in the latter sense necessarily applies to every design element in every game ever made, which would make it a pretty meaningless word.

Now arbitrary isn't necessarily a negative, a good design choice is good whether it's arbitrary or not. All the build rules of battletech are just arbitrarily made up, but it's still a good game and so on.

[PhoenixFire55]

Sjorpha, on 03 June 2017 - 05:30 AM, said:

In my opinion there is a very big difference between "arbitrary" as in arbitrarily specifying each individual element in a design, and "arbitrary" as in designing your own internal logic for your game world. It's a bit dishonest to not make that distinction since arbitrary in the latter sense necessarily applies to every design element in every game ever made, which would make it a pretty meaningless word.

This game isn't made out of nowhere. If PGI was actually creating their own universe and their own lore, then sure, they can do whatever the fk they want and balance everything according to their "arbitrary" vision in a "good" sense. But since the game has a tiny little "A BattleTech Game" in its logo and positions itself accordingly (thus drawing in BT fans and revenues from em), everything that goes against BT lore, existing rules and alike is "arbitrary" in a "bad" sense.

But then again, they've never even bothered to actually make a BT game, so all this doesn't really matter. This game already has nothing to do with BT anyway.

[Mawai]

Requiemking, on 02 June 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure if they playtested any of the changes they made they would have pulled it back for "further work". Not to mention, that diagram you showed only shows just how stupid this was. The ACH was always more skimpy than the FS9, and yet the FS9 got enlarged while the Cheetah went untouched.

A couple of points ... the ACH is 30 tons while the FS is 35tons. In addition, both the Wolfhound and the Panther have almost identical profiles as the Firestarter and are both 35 tons ... so if there is an issue with the FS then these two also have the same issue. On the other hand, if they usually seem ok ... then it is some sort of perception bias since the firestarter is the same as other similar shaped 35 ton mechs.