31 replies to this topic

[Pahrias]

I think its time for another resize pass. Just my opinion on these few mechs.

IS side:

FS9 needs shrinking a bit.

BLK also needs a small down size.

Urbie could stand to increase a bit for how tanky it is.

Clan side:

ACW increase.

Timber could use a shrinkage. (narrower, smaller ears)

PIR increase.


Thoughts? any other mechs that could do with a resize pass?

Also, anyone know what happened to HP inflation IS was supposed to get for the older mechs like the spider or jenner?

[Jackal Noble]

You skipped the Flea

[Y E O N N E]

PIR, LCT, and FLE are sized just fine, thank you.

[Jackal Noble]

I knew you'd jump on that lol

[FupDup]

Urbs already got a little bigger in the rescale, and it needs to be that tanky because of how slow it is relative to its weight class.

And Arctic Wolf? Bruh, that thing is already glass.

Edited by FupDup, 22 July 2018 - 10:34 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Shrink the BJ and NSR, pls.

Jackal Noble, on 22 July 2018 - 10:33 AM, said:

I knew you'd jump on that lol

This boat anchor doesn't need to actually become one.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 22 July 2018 - 10:34 AM.

[Toothless]

I want my mechs to be smaller than the odds of another resize pass.

[Spheroid]

No, rescaling is a ton of man hours. Durability can be enhanced with less than five minutes of work editing XML values.

It is not logical to take a more inefficient route in the resolution of a problem.

Resizing comes at the cost of other workloads. Why would you advocate this?

[Johnathan Tanner]

Spheroid, on 22 July 2018 - 10:57 AM, said:

Resizing comes at the cost of other workloads. Why would you advocate this?

In the name of fun. Thats why.

EDIT: Also editing XML values seems to be a ton of man hours for PGI.

Edited by Johnathan Tanner, 22 July 2018 - 11:02 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Toothless, on 22 July 2018 - 10:35 AM, said:

I want my mechs to be smaller than the odds of another resize pass.

I'd settle for at least smaller than the odds that another resize pass would go well.

[Tarl Cabot]

Careful of what you wish for. The resizing that was done was within weight class only, not across the board. And even within the weight class itself, PGI ensured there would be a distinction between a 30 and 35t ton mechs, when it should actually been difficult to tell.

Spheroid, on 22 July 2018 - 10:57 AM, said:

No, rescaling is a ton of man hours. Durability can be enhanced with less than five minutes of work editing XML values.

It is not logical to take a more inefficient route in the resolution of a problem.

Resizing comes at the cost of other workloads. Why would you advocate this?

Had a witty reply for this one but tis not worth it.....

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 22 July 2018 - 11:07 AM.

[FupDup]

Spheroid, on 22 July 2018 - 10:57 AM, said:

No, rescaling is a ton of man hours. Durability can be enhanced with less than five minutes of work editing XML values.

It is not logical to take a more inefficient route in the resolution of a problem.

Resizing comes at the cost of other workloads. Why would you advocate this?

Well, achieving durability via resizing helps avoid the problem of increasing health inflation that in turn may lead to firepower inflation thus creating a vicious cycle. Plus, durability via resizing can be theoretically higher than quirks often are because it's hard to quantity enemy damage that misses outright because of a smaller target.

But I would totally settle for quarks, the only issue being that PGI doesn't seem to want to use quarks sufficiently.

Edited by FupDup, 22 July 2018 - 11:15 AM.

[Pahrias]

just thought of another IS mech.

Victor. Could do with skinny-fying. bit taller, less broad torso.

And another clan.

DWF also would benefit from being slightly thinner.

and as to why id ask for this, yeah for the enjoyment factor of the game naturally. some mechs would work better, therefore be played more = more variety on the battlefield.

[Chados]

Yeonne Greene, on 22 July 2018 - 10:32 AM, said:

PIR, LCT, and FLE are sized just fine, thank you.

This. So is the Urbanmech.

[Pahrias]

yeah for the most part the 20t mechs are fine where they are. i only mention the PIR because it has a much higher DPS potential than the FS9 ever had, yet the FS9 still grew. and it currently has probably the highest DPS of any light right now

[Y E O N N E]

Pahrias, on 22 July 2018 - 11:27 AM, said:

yeah for the most part the 20t mechs are fine where they are. i only mention the PIR because it has a much higher DPS potential than the FS9 ever had, yet the FS9 still grew. and it currently has probably the highest DPS of any light right now

Resize never had anything to do with offensive capabilities. It was always about 'Mechs supposedly needing to have consistent sizing per weight. The real sin is that PGI didn't give it adequate compensatory durability buffs for its size and even whacked its agility, and that's because they figured its offensive capabilities would counter-balance. They were wrong, but that was the logic.

[Spheroid]

Listen if the reasoning is that certain mechs are more fragile than others under the current weapon meta, why invest a ton of work in resizing when the whole meta most likely will shift when Clan energy weapons are nerfed? If there are again outliers does that again demand a rescale? Of course not the whole idea is supper inefficient.

Also what about continuity of art assets? The mechs we have now are shared between Battltetech and MechWarrior 5. Many people would be highly annoyed by large discrepancy if a say a Jenner had a 25% difference in size between the various titles.

[FupDup]

Spheroid, on 22 July 2018 - 11:33 AM, said:

Listen if the reasoning is that certain mechs are more fragile than others under the current weapon meta, why invest a ton of work in resizing when the whole meta most likely will shift when Clan energy weapons are nerfed? If there are again outliers does that again demand a rescale? Of course not the whole idea is supper inefficient.

Also what about continuity of art assets? The mechs we have now are shared between Battltetech and MechWarrior 5. Many people would be highly annoyed by large discrepancy if a say a Jenner had a 25% difference in size between the various titles.

Hasn't MW5 already shown screenshots of mechs like the Shadow Hawk being way bigger than they are in MWO? And really, we're talking about entirely separate titles with different gameplay requirements (MW5 won't care about weight class balance because you're supposed to buy your way up to assaults as the end-game, MWO needs all classes to have similar gameplay impact).

[Y E O N N E]

Spheroid, on 22 July 2018 - 11:33 AM, said:

Also what about continuity of art assets? The mechs we have now are shared between Battltetech and MechWarrior 5. Many people would be highly annoyed by large discrepancy if a say a Jenner had a 25% difference in size between the various titles.

Do you really think HBS didn't touch the models, textures, and animations at all for their game?

[Jackal Noble]

Pahrias, on 22 July 2018 - 11:27 AM, said:

yeah for the most part the 20t mechs are fine where they are. i only mention the PIR because it has a much higher DPS potential than the FS9 ever had, yet the FS9 still grew. and it currently has probably the highest DPS of any light right now

by that reasoning the Black Lanner is horribly over-sized.