362 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Sandpit, on 13 December 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

I'm not touching you

Must... fight urge... to.... keep... this going... all day... until they... lock the thread...

butt munch...

[Zerstorer Stallin]

After reading this post I fear for the future of man kind. Its amazing how people cant grasp high school level math problems presented here. The confusion between agility, turn radius and speed is truly sad. even after clearly showing the issue using ( god help us ) facts based on, you know, MATH. People still are either to ignorant to get it or just to uneducated. Holy H$LL.

[Mr 144]

DaZur, on 13 December 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

[/size]
Agreed. In application while a Heavy may have the same ground-speed of a Medium... It's greater mass should play out making it less maneuverable / agile... particularly in stop / start and turning radius at full speed.

As I demonstrated with a comparable heavy vs. medium build pages ago....ground speed does NOT equal agility in and of itself. A hunchback-4SP will always be more agile than it's heavy counter part despite similar top speeds. No one wants to undertand this though....proponents of the will to nerf only see top speed and turn speed as valid variables to "agility".

Zerstorer Stallin, on 13 December 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

After reading this post I fear for the future of man kind. Its amazing how people cant grasp high school level math problems presented here. The confusion between agility, turn radius and speed is truly sad. even after clearly showing the issue using ( god help us ) facts based on, you know, MATH. People still are either to ignorant to get it or just to uneducated. Holy H$LL.

Incomplete math is incomplete math....using only a small portion of variables to reach a desired conclusion is sloppy and disingenuous.

Edited by Mr 144, 13 December 2013 - 03:20 PM.

[Sandpit]

DaZur, on 13 December 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

Must... fight urge... to.... keep... this going... all day... until they... lock the thread...

butt munch...

Nikooooooooooooo! He's calling me names! *mumblepoopyheadmumble*

Zerstorer Stallin, on 13 December 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

After reading this post I fear for the future of man kind. Its amazing how people cant grasp high school level math problems presented here. The confusion between agility, turn radius and speed is truly sad. even after clearly showing the issue using ( god help us ) facts based on, you know, MATH. People still are either to ignorant to get it or just to uneducated. Holy H$LL.

I can't agree or disagree with you without knowing what side of the discussion you're on though!

[Artgathan]

Mr 144, on 11 December 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

A typical HBK-4SP "agile" brawler
Headslot ML vs. extra DHS pilot preference...
125+20%(elite) = 150 degree torso twist
40 degree arm sway (20 point hardpoint controlled)
190 degree total tracking ability...no blind spots
38% heat efficiency
275 std engine
98.0 kph

Now, an apples-to-apples heavy comparison....
The orion ON1-K "agile" Brawler
90+20%(elite) = 108 degree torso twist
20 degree arm sway (20 point hardpoint controlled)
128 degree total tracking ability ( 104 degree blind spot)
39% heat efficiency
350 XL engine
83.2 kph

Let's look at how this breaks down then.

The Hunchback is 66.6% of the Orion's mass (IE: the Orion is 150% of the Hunchback's weight). The Hunchback has devoted 43% of its weight to it's engine (an XL would cost it 28% of its weight), the Orion has spent 30% (the 350STD would take up 48% of the Orion's mass).

The Orion has:

• 72% of the HBK's Torso Twist range
  
• 61% of the HBK's Torso Twist Speed
  
• 50% of the HBK's Arm Sway
  
• 85% of the HBK's Arm Reflex Speed
  
• 63% of the HBK's total Tracking Range
  
• 129% of the HBK's Armor
  
• 122% of the HBK's firepower
  
• 84% of the HBK's Top Speed
  
• 84% of the HBK's Turning Speed

Overall, the Orion has a disproportionately high mobility for it's size. Even if we adjust is for relative engine sizes the Orion comes out ahead of where it should be. The only stat where the Orion really loses out is the Arm Sway. On the Twist Speed and Tracking Range the mechs are comparable. In everything else? The Orion clearly has superior capabilities for it's weight - if the mechs are built to similar specs, their statistics should should similar performance discounted for weight (IE: the Orion should have 66% of the Hunchback's agility / the Hunchback should have 150% of the Orion's agility).

Ergo, this demostration of the Hunchback's "superior" mobility has failed.

Edited by Artgathan, 13 December 2013 - 04:06 PM.

[Sable Dove]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 December 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

Tack on 2/3 my body weight you say? Like how yo are just throwing around silliness to try to make your point.

You're absolutely right. If I stick a STD300 engine in an Atlas, that's 35 tons of structure and motive force moving 65 tons of additional armour, weapons, ammo, and equipment. What I should have said was tack on about twice your own weight (mostly on the torso and arms) and try it. (Ignoring for the moment that as something becomes larger, it requires disproportionately more structure and musculature to move more mass.)

Joseph Mallan, on 13 December 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

The Gyro and NeuroHelmet in the Fluff is supposed to allow a Mech to react with the pilots reflexes and sense of balance... So a person with good reflexes would be able to get more out of his ride than an armchair warrior. Since I have no issue getting circle shanked by lights back of the Need to Nerf pedals. If it were as big a problem as some are making it, I'd have no problem smacking around lights. That's not the case, so to me the point is Moot.

Reflex and agility are not the same thing. Yes, the mech will have (roughly) the same reflexes as the pilot, in that when the pilot wants to turn the torso or move an arm, it starts moving immediately. This does not include some sort of black-magic mass-reducing technology that allows 10-15 tons of metal to wave around as though it weighed only a few pounds.

Edited by Sable Dove, 13 December 2013 - 04:48 PM.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Sandpit, on 13 December 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

Nikooooooooooooo! He's calling me names! *mumblepoopyheadmumble*


I can't agree or disagree with you without knowing what side of the discussion you're on though!

The side that used math to show people how out of wack the turning and tracking for meks is. You know the side using FACTS.

[Mr 144]

Artgathan, on 13 December 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

Let's look at how this breaks down then.

The Hunchback is 66.6% of the Orion's mass (IE: the Orion is 150% of the Hunchback's weight). The Hunchback has devoted 43% of its weight to it's engine (an XL would cost it 28% of its weight), the Orion has spent 30% (the 350STD would take up 48% of the Orion's mass).

The Orion has:

• 72% of the HBK's Torso Twist range
  
• 61% of the HBK's Torso Twist Speed
  
• 50% of the HBK's Arm Sway
  
• 85% of the HBK's Arm Reflex Speed
  
• 63% of the HBK's total Tracking Range
  
• 129% of the HBK's Armor
  
• 122% of the HBK's firepower
  
• 84% of the HBK's Top Speed
  
• 84% of the HBK's Turning Speed

Overall, the Orion has a disproportionately high mobility for it's size. Even if we adjust is for relative engine sizes the Orion comes out ahead of where it should be. The only stat where the Orion really loses out is the Arm Sway. On the Twist Speed and Tracking Range the mechs are comparable. In everything else? The Orion clearly has superior capabilities for it's weight - if the mechs are built to similar specs, their statistics should should similar performance discounted for weight (IE: the Orion should have 66% of the Hunchback's agility / the Hunchback should have 150% of the Orion's agility).



Ergo, this demostration of the Hunchback's "superior" mobility has failed.

wow....don't know how you reach your conclusions.....you post a whole lot about how the HBK is far more agile than the orion...then claim based on engine weight, that the orion is to agile, even though it lacks in EVERY SINGLE AGILITY METRIC...Armor is irrelevant as both mechs takes precisely 64 torso damage to kill. The heavy trades 10 point of extra damage for a loss of agility in every single way. If you really don't think a 4SP is vastly more agile than an orion...than I don't know what else to say. Show percentages to attempt to downplay this all you want, but this...



is far more agile than this...



Better Top Speed....
Better Acceleration
Better Decceleration
Better everything in terms of agility

Mediums and lights may have issues...but agility is not one of them...nor are heavies and assaults anywhere near them in agility. To argue this based on only turn speed is rediculous.

[Artgathan]

Mr 144, on 13 December 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

wow....don't know how you reach your conclusions.....you post a whole lot about how the HBK is far more agile than the orion...then claim based on engine weight, that the orion is to agile, even though it lacks in EVERY SINGLE AGILITY METRIC...Armor is irrelevant as both mechs takes precisely 64 torso damage to kill. The heavy trades 10 point of extra damage for a loss of agility in every single way. If you really don't think a 4SP is vastly more agile than an orion...than I don't know what else to say. Show percentages to attempt to downplay this all you want, but this...



is far more agile than this...



Better Top Speed....
Better Acceleration
Better Decceleration
Better everything in terms of agility

Mediums and lights may have issues...but agility is not one of them...nor are heavies and assaults anywhere near them in agility. To argue this based on only turn speed is rediculous.

Yes the Hunckback is "absolutely" more agile, but "relatively" to their weight the Orion is more agile.

[Mr 144]

Artgathan, on 13 December 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

Yes the Hunckback is "absolutely" more agile, but "relatively" to their weight the Orion is more agile.

If you demand linear agility proportionality based soley off weight, than the orion would also need an increase in firepower without sacrificing any agility to reach your desired balance.....your 66/150 percentages, not mine....

[Artgathan]

Mr 144, on 13 December 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

If you demand linear agility proportionality based soley off weight, than the orion would also need an increase in firepower without sacrificing any agility to reach your desired balance.....your 66/150 percentages, not mine....

https://yourlogicalf...pecial-pleading

I'm not demanding proportional agility. You said "this Orion isn't as agile as this Hunchback!" I proved that it was, in fact, more agile given it's size. We weren't talking about firepower.

[Mr 144]

Artgathan, on 13 December 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

https://yourlogicalf...pecial-pleading

I'm not demanding proportional agility. You said "this Orion isn't as agile as this Hunchback!" I proved that it was, in fact, more agile given it's size. We weren't talking about firepower.

You specifically included that metric in your percentage chart....just following your lead quarterback

"more agile given its size" means nothing. If you want an increase in agility, you must go lighter in tonnage, which is contrary to several points being made in this thread. There is a very distinct progression of loss of agility the heavier chassis get.

[Artgathan]

Mr 144, on 13 December 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

"more agile given its size" means nothing. If you want an increase in agility, you must go lighter in tonnage, which is contrary to several points being made in this thread. There is a very distinct progression of loss of agility the heavier chassis get.

Actually it means this: if I shrunk the Orion down to be a 50-tonner, it would have agility specs exceeding that of the hunchback.

It in no way goes contrary to the points being made in this thread. If that is the conclusion being drawn, then you are either accidentally or deliberately misinterpreting or failing to understand what has been argued. You are essentially claiming that someone, somewhere in this thread said "as mechs get heavier, they get more agile." No one said that. What was said is "heavier mechs are too agile." Those are vastly different statements, and the evidence supports that statement.

[Sandpit]

Can't you all go post on the 900 clan threads now instead? This **** is all old news now

[Mr 144]

Artgathan, on 13 December 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

Actually it means this: if I shrunk the Orion down to be a 50-tonner, it would have agility specs exceeding that of the hunchback.

So like I said, and you denied....you are again demanding linear agility progression based soley off tonnage.

Sandpit, on 13 December 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

Can't you all go post on the 900 clan threads now instead? This **** is all old news now

eating my pizza before playing...seemed like a pleasant time killer

[Sable Dove]

Mr 144, on 13 December 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

So like I said, and you denied....you are again demanding linear agility progression based soley off tonnage.

I'd say he's more in favour just of mechs not getting proportionately more agile as they get heavier. It doesn't have to be linear, but heavier mechs should, in general, be - relative to their weight - less agile than lighter mechs.

[Mr 144]

Sable Dove, on 13 December 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

I'd say he's more in favour just of mechs not getting proportionately more agile as they get heavier. It doesn't have to be linear, but heavier mechs should, in general, be - relative to their weight - less agile than lighter mechs.

And I believe this is already true in general terms unless large XLs or low firepower is used which should change there role to that of a lighter class. The fact that these roles do not exist is a point not lost on me, I just don't agree that heavies and assault need any further agility nerfs...they've had plenty since the 1st chassis of CB.

[Artgathan]

Mr 144, on 13 December 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

And I believe this is already true in general terms unless large XLs or low firepower is used which should change there role to that of a lighter class. The fact that these roles do not exist is a point not lost on me, I just don't agree that heavies and assault need any further agility nerfs...they've had plenty since the 1st chassis of CB.

It is not true - a stock Atlas (25% of its mass is engine) has more than half the "agility" of a Hunchback with a 275 engine (43% of its mass is engine).

I'd agree that "edge cases" (such as the Dragon / Quickdraw, Victor / Awesome) should be able to emulate the agility of the weight class below them with a sufficiently large engine. I am fully aware that certain battlemechs were designed to be agile for their size (and there should be some sort of mechanic that allows this to remain true). However the point I've been arguing is that the ones that are not supposed to be agile are extremely agile.

[Cebi]

This had always been a problem. Would be wonderful if PGI could look into it, though I am afraid they won't as the heavier the mech, the more $$$ it's worth.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Sandpit, on 13 December 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

Can't you all go post on the 900 clan threads now instead? This **** is all old news now

Nope - some of us are interested in what we have now rather than 6 months down the line.

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 15 December 2013 - 01:50 PM.