Back when the movement system was announced, something rather important got slipped through the cracks amidst it's other problems: That your movement penalties are entirely size based, not tonnage based.This has been outright confirmed as the way it works.
Now, this doesn't sound terrible you might think. Most lighter 'mechs are smaller anyway, so it would only act as a quirk to a few overly tall 'mechs, right?
Enter the Kintaro & Quickdraw. Even before these new 'mechs, this system was a problem - the Trebuchet would literally handle on par with the Stalker due to their size. However, now, we have a 60 tonner and a 55 tonner that are as big as Highlanders in every way, with an outright massive frame. In fact, so massive, they're tagged as such in the game.
The point? The Kintaro currently handles as bad on hills as an Atlas despite being nearly half it's weight, and far, far worse than it's other medium 'mechs.
I see no sign of this letting up. We're going to apparently get wildly out of scale 'mechs from here out with a total divorced link between tonnage/size. As a result, I really, really don't think we should be basing maneuverability based on these questionable art decisions. Oversized light 'mechs already have enough problems with their hit box, and God help us all if we get an undersized assault 'mech that can move on terrain like a Hunchback.
0
Movement Modifier: Size Vs Weight. Should A Kintaro Perform Worse Than An Atlas?
Started by Victor Morson, Aug 12 2013 12:58 PM
11 replies to this topic
#2
-
-
- 331 posts
Member
Posted 12 August 2013 - 04:19 PM
Heh! Good luck getting that fixed.
I am still waiting to see if PGI could add more hard points to the Atlas. I cannot believe that the heaviest mech has almost the least amount of Hard Points.
I am still waiting to see if PGI could add more hard points to the Atlas. I cannot believe that the heaviest mech has almost the least amount of Hard Points.
#3
-
-
- 5,985 posts
Member
- LocationBay Area, California
Posted 12 August 2013 - 04:23 PM
KAT Ayanami, on 12 August 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:
Heh! Good luck getting that fixed.
I am still waiting to see if PGI could add more hard points to the Atlas. I cannot believe that the heaviest mech has almost the least amount of Hard Points.
I am still waiting to see if PGI could add more hard points to the Atlas. I cannot believe that the heaviest mech has almost the least amount of Hard Points.
Design philosophy on hardpoints changed right about when the Stalker hit.
Look at all the original 8 mechs, only the hunchbacks, Awesomes, and Atlas had more than 6 hardpoints, and the Commando had 4.
Now we've got Jagers with 8, Stalkers with 10, Quickdraws with 6-7 (and jets), and the upcoming Kintaros with 7.
Design philosophy on hitboxes and sizing also changed quite a bit.
Look at the Jenner/Hunchback/Catapult/Atlas, pretty good size progression. Then fast-forward to the trebuchet, stalker, quickdraw...
Edited by One Medic Army, 12 August 2013 - 04:26 PM.
#4
-
-
- 2,342 posts
Member
Posted 12 August 2013 - 04:48 PM
As a Jager pilot I support PGI's terrible and nonsensical decision.
Edited by Royalewithcheese, 12 August 2013 - 04:51 PM.
#5
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 26,888 posts
Member
- LocationThe Keeper of Memes
Posted 12 August 2013 - 04:57 PM
I have an odd feeling that the Locust will end up like this if scaling keeps being so screwey:
#7
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 26,888 posts
Member
- LocationThe Keeper of Memes
Posted 12 August 2013 - 05:30 PM
Joseph Mallan, on 12 August 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:
i'll take all of them if Locusts are like that!
You sure? Tidal Wave has pretty bad looking hitboxes, such as a giant head and tiny side torsos. Although, the arms look like they'd make for great shields.
Edited by FupDup, 12 August 2013 - 05:30 PM.
#8
-
-
- Mercenary
- 4,763 posts
Member
- LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:07 PM
Movement profiles should be based on several factors. Weight would inform it, naturally, with lighter mechs generally being more maneuverable and heavier ones being less so. It should not be the entire determining factor, though.
Size really shouldn't matter. Sheer volume is irrelevant to mobility. What matters is how that volume is arranged, or in other words shape and joints.
I suggest that there by four leg classifications. In order from more maneuverable to less, here they are:
1 - Nimble bird legs. Ravens, Cicadas, etc., would have these legs for the express purpose of being more nimble. They're less solid, so they might suffer more impulse effects from incoming fire, but they should have superior performance over rough terrain.
2 - Nimble anthropomorphic legs. Commandos, Ravens, Trebuchets, Blackjacks, etc., conform to this standard. These are longer human-style legs designed for a good mix of stability and maneuverability.
3 - Heavy bird legs. Stalkers and Catapults come to mind for this set. They're designed to support a mech that spends a lot of time firing high-recoil weapons. Both Stalkers and Catapults carry a bunch of weapons mounted high on the mech for better fields of fire. When discharged their high mountings would tend to push the top of the mech back due to recoil or back blast or whatever, so the legs are designed to mitigate this as much as possible. They also allow those mechs somewhat improved performance on rough terrain, due to their purpose as fire support platforms, whether direct or indirect, which requires that they get into places that other mechs of similar weight profiles would not be expected to go easily.
4 - Heavy anthropomorphic legs. These are shorter, stumpier humanoid legs designed for lots of stability while allowing for decent close-in maneuverability (turning and such). They'd be the worst option for dealing with rough terrain, but their sheer solidity would make them ideal for heavy mechs with lots of guns and armor (Awesome and Atlas), very heavy jumpers (Victor and Highlander), and others.
Naturally, there would have to be a bit of a sliding scale between the two extremes within each leg type (bird and anthropomorphic). For instance, the Hunchback might be mid-way between the two human-style leg types, with lots of solidity to support its AC20 but a good bit of nimbleness to help its urban combat role. The Cataphract would be a middle-type as well, though bird-like rather than anthropomorphic, due to its role as a heavy cavalry mech, with a good mix of armor, firepower, and mobility.
Taking the 45 degree angle as a starting point, you could do something like this (the listed angle is when they start to slow down a bit):
1 - Ravens and Cicadas are the full 45 degrees, with -5% turn rates.
2 - Jenners, Spiders, and Commandos are 42.5 degrees, with +10% rates.
3 - Blackjacks are 40 degrees, with +8% turn rates.
4 - Trebuchets are 37.5 degrees, with +6% turn rates.
5 - Hunchbacks, Kintaros, Dragons, Quickdraws, and Centurions are 35 degrees, with +5% turn rates.
6 - Catapults and Cataphracts are 35 degrees, with -8% turn rates.
7 - Stalkers are 32.5 degrees, with -10% turn rates.
8 - Awesomes and Victors are 30 degrees with +5% turn rates.
9 - Highlanders and Atlases are 27.5 degrees with +3% turn rates.
TLDR - Do a fine distribution among mechs, using a mixture of weight class and leg type to establish a unique movement profile for each mech. Movement profiles would determine the angle of terrain at which they start to lose speed, as well as an increase or decrease to base turn rates. In general bird-like mechs would have better rough terrain performance but lower turn performance and human-like mechs would have better turn performance and worse rough terrain performance.
Size really shouldn't matter. Sheer volume is irrelevant to mobility. What matters is how that volume is arranged, or in other words shape and joints.
I suggest that there by four leg classifications. In order from more maneuverable to less, here they are:
1 - Nimble bird legs. Ravens, Cicadas, etc., would have these legs for the express purpose of being more nimble. They're less solid, so they might suffer more impulse effects from incoming fire, but they should have superior performance over rough terrain.
2 - Nimble anthropomorphic legs. Commandos, Ravens, Trebuchets, Blackjacks, etc., conform to this standard. These are longer human-style legs designed for a good mix of stability and maneuverability.
3 - Heavy bird legs. Stalkers and Catapults come to mind for this set. They're designed to support a mech that spends a lot of time firing high-recoil weapons. Both Stalkers and Catapults carry a bunch of weapons mounted high on the mech for better fields of fire. When discharged their high mountings would tend to push the top of the mech back due to recoil or back blast or whatever, so the legs are designed to mitigate this as much as possible. They also allow those mechs somewhat improved performance on rough terrain, due to their purpose as fire support platforms, whether direct or indirect, which requires that they get into places that other mechs of similar weight profiles would not be expected to go easily.
4 - Heavy anthropomorphic legs. These are shorter, stumpier humanoid legs designed for lots of stability while allowing for decent close-in maneuverability (turning and such). They'd be the worst option for dealing with rough terrain, but their sheer solidity would make them ideal for heavy mechs with lots of guns and armor (Awesome and Atlas), very heavy jumpers (Victor and Highlander), and others.
Naturally, there would have to be a bit of a sliding scale between the two extremes within each leg type (bird and anthropomorphic). For instance, the Hunchback might be mid-way between the two human-style leg types, with lots of solidity to support its AC20 but a good bit of nimbleness to help its urban combat role. The Cataphract would be a middle-type as well, though bird-like rather than anthropomorphic, due to its role as a heavy cavalry mech, with a good mix of armor, firepower, and mobility.
Taking the 45 degree angle as a starting point, you could do something like this (the listed angle is when they start to slow down a bit):
1 - Ravens and Cicadas are the full 45 degrees, with -5% turn rates.
2 - Jenners, Spiders, and Commandos are 42.5 degrees, with +10% rates.
3 - Blackjacks are 40 degrees, with +8% turn rates.
4 - Trebuchets are 37.5 degrees, with +6% turn rates.
5 - Hunchbacks, Kintaros, Dragons, Quickdraws, and Centurions are 35 degrees, with +5% turn rates.
6 - Catapults and Cataphracts are 35 degrees, with -8% turn rates.
7 - Stalkers are 32.5 degrees, with -10% turn rates.
8 - Awesomes and Victors are 30 degrees with +5% turn rates.
9 - Highlanders and Atlases are 27.5 degrees with +3% turn rates.
TLDR - Do a fine distribution among mechs, using a mixture of weight class and leg type to establish a unique movement profile for each mech. Movement profiles would determine the angle of terrain at which they start to lose speed, as well as an increase or decrease to base turn rates. In general bird-like mechs would have better rough terrain performance but lower turn performance and human-like mechs would have better turn performance and worse rough terrain performance.
#9
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 1,656 posts
Member
Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:30 PM
get rid of engine limitations and the problem is solved . regardless of the penalties.
#10
-
-
- 8,260 posts
Member
Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:01 PM
Quote
That your movement penalties are entirely size based, not tonnage based.This has been outright confirmed as the way it works.
...
The point? The Kintaro currently handles as bad on hills as an Atlas despite being nearly half it's weight, and far, far worse than it's other medium 'mechs.
...
The point? The Kintaro currently handles as bad on hills as an Atlas despite being nearly half it's weight, and far, far worse than it's other medium 'mechs.
Is this ACTUALLY true? I haven't driven a Kintaro, cause I'm not paying real money of that, but this just doesn't seem right at all.
Maybe it's just me thinking that it's so obviously wrong, that it couldn't be how it works in game.. but it's certainly possible that it just makes no sense.
Where is the source of the info that this is how it works, Vic, if you don't mind me asking?
I know there were some oddities in the different mechs' maneuverabilty (like the Cataphract being more agile than the pult), but I didn't see anything that said it was actually based on mech size.
#11
Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:02 PM
nitra, on 12 August 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:
get rid of engine limitations and the problem is solved . regardless of the penalties.
The problem with this was(is) the 150 ish limit was due to Mechs faster than that were completely untouchable, as I heard it. I can kill a Spider an Jenners now. I like this ability thank you.
#12
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 1,656 posts
Member
Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:06 PM
yep and know its time to see if its been fixed with all the hsr stuff that was supposed to fix that problem.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
