478 replies to this topic

[BackShot]

I think this topic needs something to be clarified. there are 3 different things :

-reality

-lore

-mwo gameplay

Anything related to balance in MWO should be related to the last one, and not the two others.
trying to mix them is pointless.

So you can be an expert in science or in the battletech lore, good for you, but this has nothing to do with what we should or should not do about the scale of the mechs.

The balance questions, about that scale thing, are :

Do assaults mechs need a buff ? according to their performance compared to other classes, i think not.
Do the lights needs nerf ? According to their performance compared to other classes, i think not.

[Nightbird]

BackShot, on 24 January 2020 - 08:35 AM, said:

I think this topic needs something to be clarified. there are 3 different things :

-reality

-lore

-mwo gameplay

Anything related to balance in MWO should be related to the last one, and not the two others.
trying to mix them is pointless.

So you can be an expert in science or in the battletech lore, good for you, but this has nothing to do with what we should or should not do about the scale of the mechs.

The balance questions, about that scale thing, are :

Do assaults mechs need a buff ? according to their performance compared to other classes, i think not.
Do the lights needs nerf ? According to their performance compared to other classes, i think not.

Yes and No. MWO performance is absolutely the end goal. But some ways of achieving balance is more annoying to players than others.

Would it be better to have high weapon mount mechs be balanced around agility (per physics https://mwomercs.com...l-life-physics/) or around giving other mechs survival quirks? With agility, the top mounted mechs will take more risk and damage in pokes and while moving, whereas with survival quirks you become a better target for others to farm damage off you.

Would it be better to balance assaults and lights around agility, which smaller scaled assaults will still lack, or around pitch, by creating the leg humping mechanic?

[BackShot]

So if the subject is about balancing low mounted mechs vs high mounted mechs what is the point of comparing a commando to an atlas ? or comparing any mech that has not the same tonnage ?

Now if you show me two mech with same tonnage :

-one with overall good performance due to high mounts, good amount of hardpoints or whatever...
-And one with overall bad performance du to low mounts, hardpoint starvation or whatever...

Now we can discuss that rescaling the second one to have smaller hitboxes "could" be a good idea to balance it with the first one.

Edited by BackShot, 24 January 2020 - 09:53 AM.

[Nightbird]

BackShot, on 24 January 2020 - 09:45 AM, said:

So if the subject is about balancing low mounted mechs vs high mounted mechs what is the point of comparing a commando to an atlas ? or comparing any mech that has not the same tonnage ?

Now if you show me two mech with same tonnage :

-one with overall good performance due to high mounts, good amount of hardpoints or whatever...
-And one with overall bad performance du to low mounts, hardpoint starvation or whatever...

Now we can that rescaling the second one to have smaller hitboxes "could" be a good idea to balance it with the first one.

The discussion started on volumetric scaling because PGI said they that's how today's mechs are scaled, and the OP proved it wasn't. It showed PGI doing some surface area scaling. There was some back and forth on uniform density but most agreed that PGI did not do volumetric or even consider density.

The discussion moved on to how surface area scaling is better for MWO game balance as the justification. Note this doesn't absolve PGI of their lie, it just questions whether surface area scaling is better in the first place.

As to your question, three 90 ton mechs with the same agility:
Blood Asp, Mad Cat MK II, Mauler
Top mounted weapons, mid mounted weapons, low mounted weapons

Top performer, good performer, worst performer

Should have been least agile, average agility, most agility, and it would bring their performance more in line with each other.

Scaling doesn't matter since they are all the same tonnage. I'm not arguing for the worst mech to be made smaller.

[Dimento Graven]

Keep in mind with agility should also consider 'mech's overall configuration, like with what I understand from the OP, due to how the KGC (and the 'mechs similarly configured, Nightstar, Corsair, Stalker, etc.) it should have really great maneuverability having a natural low center of gravity. Especially with those bird legs to better handle the positioning of the large upper mass vs. lower mass ratio.

[Nightbird]

Dimento Graven, on 24 January 2020 - 10:45 AM, said:

Keep in mind with agility should also consider 'mech's overall configuration, like with what I understand from the OP, due to how the KGC (and the 'mechs similarly configured, Nightstar, Corsair, Stalker, etc.) it should have really great maneuverability having a natural low center of gravity. Especially with those bird legs to better handle the positioning of the large upper mass vs. lower mass ratio.

A good post to discuss in the other thread

[thievingmagpi]

Nightbird, on 24 January 2020 - 10:02 AM, said:

The discussion started on volumetric scaling because PGI said they that's how today's mechs are scaled, and the OP proved it wasn't. It showed PGI doing some surface area scaling. There was some back and forth on uniform density but most agreed that PGI did not do volumetric or even consider density.

The discussion moved on to how surface area scaling is better for MWO game balance as the justification. Note this doesn't absolve PGI of their lie, it just questions whether surface area scaling is better in the first place.

As to your question, three 90 ton mechs with the same agility:
Blood Asp, Mad Cat MK II, Mauler
Top mounted weapons, mid mounted weapons, low mounted weapons

Top performer, good performer, worst performer

Should have been least agile, average agility, most agility, and it would bring their performance more in line with each other.

Scaling doesn't matter since they are all the same tonnage. I'm not arguing for the worst mech to be made smaller.

agile mauler

[Nightbird]

thievingmagpi, on 24 January 2020 - 03:19 PM, said:

agile mauler

It's not going to be a ballerina but based on real life physics it deserves to be 25% more agile and have better pitch than it what it has today, just as the BA deserves to be 20% less agile and have worse pitch. I'll let the people who think only gameplay balance matters decide if this changes like this brings better balance or worse balance to MWO.

Edited by Nightbird, 26 January 2020 - 09:48 AM.

[Nightbird]

Bump since PGI is again falsely claiming they did volumetric scaling.

[Buster Machine 0]

Perhaps density needs to be considered as well.

[Nightbird]

ChenGGez, on 08 October 2020 - 01:04 PM, said:

Perhaps density needs to be considered as well.

So, it makes sense that assaults have 0.25 the density of lights? Without any information provided, equivalent average density is not a bad assumption. The average of the assault mechs should have the same density as the average of the lights.

[Nightbird]

During the townhall meeting Russ falsely claimed again the rescale was "100% volumetric"

https://www.twitch.t...680?t=01h19m26s

Couldn't be more wrong. Gonna bump this a few times.

[The6thMessenger]

Nightbird, on 11 December 2020 - 10:26 PM, said:

During the townhall meeting Russ falsely claimed again the rescale was "100% volumetric"

https://www.twitch.t...680?t=01h19m26s

Couldn't be more wrong. Gonna bump this a few times.

Dafuq are you expecting?

I haven't watched, but as I have heard, the community was even blamed for the Engine Desync. At that point I was done, they can't own up to their very own missteps either. They are incapable of admitting their wrong and take all of the blame, i see no reason why won't they stick their guns up their "volumetric" scaling.

Can't reason with the unreasonable.

[Nightbird]

I was expecting an opportunity to bump my thread.

[Tesunie]

They can't say it's exactly a good scaling when the default pilot can't even fit into some mechs, like the Commando... And that was before it shrank even more.

I will comment (though I agree we need to try and bring things to an understandable generalized standard) that the amount of empty space in each specific chassis of mech was different. For example, Orion's were known for having large and open spaces for techs to work within. Other mechs, such as the Guillotine, had the opposite issue, where the power cable to the arm LL could be stretched too far and snap, forcing the tech to disassemble the entire elbow joint to repair and refeed a new cable...

However, these specs are not given on every mech in lore, so we do need to have some assumptions on this.
(I hope this helps with more bumps for you.)

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Problem No 1 by Mechs Scaling is the Artwork and his Evolution, by same desity no standard Legs,Hips,Arms with only little optical differences for Mechchassies (like Eathsiege)
and nur Rules for the Optical Design ..one Artist give small Cockpits one big Glassdomes..nor Relations to other Parts of the Mech or other Mechs of the same weightclass...seeing the Ryoken ...from the first Designs in TR3055 to the modern Catalyst Minatures big Differences ,as Miniature he has now oversized Arms thats more looking like a Heavy or Assault as a Medium ,in the First designs Arms more like a Light mech..No one Artist try to build a standard from all Informations



The most important part for a scaling is a standard Sceleton
for Example , each Mech in a Class have the same sceleton and you clip the parts like birdlegs/Humanlegs ,Arms ,Heads(with a cockpit in Realtion to the Pilot in this Sizing) of this Sceleton like the Wanzers in Front Mission ...


Original 3055




MW3 Ryoken






New Catalyst Ryoken

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 13 December 2020 - 01:17 AM.

[Nightbird]

I would suggest scaling using the volume of the torsos only, then making the current arm and legs fit that design. This would avoid punishing mechs like the Cicada with too small arms. Or, scaling the whole thing by volume but distribute the hitpoints according to volume.

MW Waldorf Statler, on 13 December 2020 - 01:12 AM, said:

New Catalyst Ryoken

I hope that's just a mislabeled nova lol.

[VonBruinwald]

Nightbird, on 13 December 2020 - 11:27 AM, said:

I hope that's just a mislabelled nova lol.

When the Jade Falcons "designed" the Cougar, they simply took an Adder and removed it's hood.

Seems like the Hell's Horses picked up the hoods for cheap and slapped them on the top of their Novas to create this Stormcrow!

[Nightbird]

Even so... it's good to know the laziness that pervades the BT franchise hasn't changed.

[PocketYoda]

Jackal Noble, on 03 March 2018 - 08:18 PM, said:

That's actually pretty cool.

Annnnd now I want a mini-Atlas.

Serious Necro somewhere, but its called an Urbie.