362 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

1) hunchback is more agile than an orion. nobody is debating that.

2) hunchback is not inbetween a spider and an orion for agility like it should be. (50 tons falls exactly in between 30 and 70). and this is the problem.

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 December 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

In this scenario My Gauss or AC20 could remove that Jenner's Leg, Torso armor & crit the side torso structure... with one lucky shell! 6 lasers would have glazed the armor on multiple locations. Maybe reaching structure on an arm...

So TT Mechs have the same "agility" as they do in MWO? Phew, glad you cleared that up.

[DaZur]

Okay... pretty picture time.



Here is the present issue that getting lost in all the semantics over how much torso twist a mechs has or how quickly is stops and starts.... "Turn radius".

All mechs regardless of class, weight or mass... all exhibit the same turn radius, assuming they are all traversing as the same linear ground speed. (left Image) This is the real world equivalent of a Dump Truck and a Mini Cooper exhibiting the same turn radius as 35 mph....

The correct / logical application of turn radius, taking into consideration how centrifugal force and linear speed and a mechs mass should influence it's turn radius (right image)...

I'm not discounting all the ancillary stuff (torso / arm range of motion or speed), braking and acceleration etc... The point is, those things should compliment unique turn radius' not being the basis for the argument of whether a mech is agile or not.

Remember all mechs, regardless of mass, rotate on their axis at 41.8 degrees-per-second, that comes out to 8.6 seconds to pivot 360 degrees on axis. Since axial speed is directly linked to a mechs turn radius... all mechs turn radius are the same.

In short, this needs to be unlinked and made unique per weight class.

Edited by DaZur, 16 December 2013 - 07:45 AM.

[Mr 144]

DaZur, on 16 December 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

Okay... pretty picture time.



Here is the present issue that getting lost in all the semantics over how much torso twist a mechs has or how quickly is stops and starts.... "Turn radius".

All mechs regardless of class, weight or mass... all exhibit the same turn radius, assuming they are all traversing as the same linear ground speed. (left Image) This is the real world equivalent of a Dump Truck and a Mini Cooper exhibiting the same turn radius as 35 mph....

The correct / logical application of turn radius, taking into consideration how centrifugal force and linear speed and a mechs mass should influence it's turn radius (right image)...

I'm not discounting all the ancillary stuff (torso / arm range of motion or speed), braking and acceleration etc... The point is, those things should compliment unique turn radius' not being the basis for the argument of whether a mech is agile or not.

Remember all mechs, regardless of mass, rotate on their axis at 41.8 degrees-per-second, that comes out to 8.6 seconds to pivot 360 degrees on axis. Since axial speed is directly linked to a mechs turn radius... all mechs turn radius are the same.

In short, this needs to be unlinked and made unique per weight class.

And it's nice to wish, but....




....has a larger turning radius than this....



Despite having a longer wheelbase AND being +153% in weight.

The simple turning circle/speed most of you are assigning is not agility, it's physics. Most mechanical principles do not aywhere close come to resembling linear proportional value based on weight and/or size.

[DaZur]

Mr 144, on 16 December 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

The simple turning circle/speed most of you are assigning is not agility, it's physics. Most mechanical principles do not aywhere close come to resembling linear proportional value based on weight and/or size.

If you're going to cherry pick real-world dissimilars to justify your premise... I give up. Of course you can find real-world outliers to prove your point just as easily as I used them to frame my point.

Of course it "physics".... it's all "physics" based!

I've clearly made my case and it's reached a point where any further discussion is just circular ... I can't make it any simpler save pulling out my fat crayons and finger paints.

Your last example is proof you are being argumentative for the sake of debate. I'm done... I guess you win.

[Mr 144]

DaZur, on 16 December 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

If you're going to cherry pick real-world dissimilars to justify your premise... I give up. Of course you can find real-world outliers to prove your point just as easily as I used them to frame my point.

Of course it "physics".... it's all "physics" based!

I've clearly made my case and it's reached a point where any further discussion is just circular ... I can't make it any simpler save pulling out my fat crayons and finger paints.

Your last example is proof you are being argumentative for the sake of debate. I'm done... I guess you win.

Cool, I win one interwebz

My point that no one likes is that there is no logical reasoning for the original premise...that of big/heavy = slow/sluggish. There is little in human perception that justifies that logic. Tractor-Trailers navigate the same roads as mini-coopers, Humans can easily swat flies despite appearing big slow and sluggish, Trains run over people because they refuse to accept that something so massive can be moving so fast, Mining equipment is scaled larger for an INCREASE to effeciency, not worse, or even linear. The CNC eguipment I run every day rapid traverses at almost identical m/s speeds regardless of magnitutde's of size and weight differences

The human concept of big=slow=inefficient is purely erroneous. An elephant (very efficient, linear scaling be damned) standing in one place and rotating vs a hummingbird (horrendously innefecient, but percieved as "agile") cirlcling at 50 meters would have no problem "tracking" it's target. The only thing turning speed math is proving is a flawed original premise.

Asking for a nerf to tonnage vs basic manueverabilty on a linear scale is akin to asking to suspend our disbelief further, as to dis-allow every comparative representation experienced by us.

Flies appear to be fast and agile, and they are....but once our cumbersome selves focus, swatting them is relatively easy. Vectored movement, probability, physics, etc....I know I'm way to deep for the average forumite, lol, but it is a philisophical perspective I truly disagree with.

[stjobe]

Mr 144, on 16 December 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

My point that no one likes is that there is no logical reasoning for the original premise...that of big/heavy = slow/sluggish.

Except, of course, for almost 30 years of BattleTech lore.

[FupDup]

stjobe, on 16 December 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Except, of course, for almost 30 years of BattleTech lore.

Or giving people a reason to try mechs under 65 tons.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 16 December 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Except, of course, for almost 30 years of BattleTech lore.

And the occasional exception to the rule.

[Mr 144]

stjobe, on 16 December 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Except, of course, for almost 30 years of BattleTech lore.

Non-sense...you want fantasy lore?

Dude, every time my hummingbird circles that elephant at 50 meters, he kills me....

Dude....
Why are you predictably circling him at 50 meters?
You know you can fly right?
Do you try changing directions? he can't change as fast as you ya know.
You know he can's see you in between his fat legs, right?


An Elephant IS slow and sluggish
A Hummingbird IS fast and agile

Just because an elephant can esily mathematically track a cirling hummingbird at 50 meters, does NOT mean the elephant is too agile. It's practically impossible for this NOT to be true.

Everyone here would laugh st the silly hummingbird for trying such a stupid maneuver and expecting it to work.

These concepts do not violate lore in any way. There is far more to "agility" than turn speed ESPECIALLY if you go with lore fiction.

Boost light/medium acceleration....decceleration...arm reflex (give them meaning somewhere for christ's sake)...JJ usuage....But a nerf bat to relatively "disbelievable" phyysical principles is not the way to go. Boost what makes the hummingbird "agile" not nerf what makes the elephant able to stand in one place and turn.

[Sable Dove]

Mr 144, on 16 December 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Boost light/medium acceleration....decceleration...arm reflex (give them meaning somewhere for christ's sake)...JJ usuage....But a nerf bat to relatively "disbelievable" phyysical principles is not the way to go. Boost what makes the hummingbird "agile" not nerf what makes the elephant able to stand in one place and turn.

The problem with this is that everything is too agile. Most lights have plateaued, and making them more agile would be more of a nerf than a buff, as they would become exponentially more difficult to control and more difficult to aim with. The original premise of the thread was that all mechs are too agile; not just heavies and assaults. The only difference is that if you decrease things like torso twist range/speed on lights, it would in most cases be a buff, as it would make it easier to actually aim.

Lights and mediums often have far more mobility/agility than they need in a given situation, so the mech efficiencies are, at best, wasted, and in many cases, more of a nerf than a buff.

Heavies and assaults, on the other hand, almost always make full use of their added agility/mobility because they have lower agility to start with.

I proposed reducing the mobility and agility of all mechs, including lights and mediums (although maybe don't reduce mediums as much, since they're the worst class at the moment).
Mostly, decrease the following:
Torso twist speed/acceleration
Arm movement speed/acceleration

To be honest though, if they removed mech efficiencies (or reworked them into 'sidegrades' that have both a positive and negative effect), then odds are mechs would be much closer to what they should be.

For an assault mech with no efficiencies to track a light with no efficiencies is much harder than for an Elite/Master assault to track an Elite/Master light. Personally, I think the current efficiencies need to be scrapped in favour of a benefit+penalty system. Want faster torso twist? You get less twist range. Higher top speed? Less acceleration/deceleration. Etc.

Edited by Sable Dove, 16 December 2013 - 03:13 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

I think that there is a bit of a splinter in what we're discussing. Agility, speed, and quickness are three separate types of attributes.

• Agility tends to be thought of being nimble like a cat (yes, pun). Essentially, this is being able to stop and cut on a dime.
  
• Speed is nothing but how quickly you get from point A to point B.
  
• Quickness is acceleration.

A mech needs to be characterized by those three individual means to separate them from others. Speed is really only based on an engine rating vs its weight. Nimbleness and quickness, though, need to be individual stats that aren't just given to lights.

In any case, Mr 144 is correct in his assertion that Da Zur's painting, while colorful, is wrong. Physics dictates that, because of the interaction of gravity and friction that speed causes you to take wider turning radii. Right now, speed doesn't impact any of that. An assault being able to back pedal and keep a target in front of it is fine. A light being able to turn a tight radius around the assault isn't. BUT, that isn't to say that the assault should be so quick in its reaction or that the light shouldn't be able to cut its speed and cut the angel to prevent damage either. THAT is what we're missing.

[Sandpit]

If you are continuously getting shot by big slow plodding mechs on the field while in a light mech, it might (just maybe?) not be the game mechanics.....

[DaZur]

Trauglodyte, on 16 December 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

In any case, Mr 144 is correct in his assertion that Da Zur's painting, while colorful, is wrong. Physics dictates that, because of the interaction of gravity and friction that speed causes you to take wider turning radii. Right now, speed doesn't impact any of that. An assault being able to back pedal and keep a target in front of it is fine. A light being able to turn a tight radius around the assault isn't. BUT, that isn't to say that the assault should be so quick in its reaction or that the light shouldn't be able to cut its speed and cut the angel to prevent damage either. THAT is what we're missing.

Wrong? Yes.. and no...

You conveniently omitting "mass" from your premise...

Interaction of gravity and friction, speed causes you to take wider turning radii... an objects mass is the formulary base to that equation. In short, the more mass an object carries while turning, directly affects is linear acceleration though it's radii.

Or... to use my big fat crayons... Assuming all mech weight classes ground speed is the same, the bigger / heavier the mech, the more difficult it is to maintain it's radius secondary to linear acceleration.

So my pretty drawing is still right.

I know...I know... I swore I was going to drop this, but my premise was challenged!

Edited by DaZur, 17 December 2013 - 08:22 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

You're right in that mass does have an effect. But, you'd also be forgetting that it would be compensated for in the building of a mech in the same way that weight is balanced in the construction of any vehicle. Hell, I didn't even bring up the concept of "skidding" into the equation and that was part of the TT rules. I only really brought up speed and turn radius as a general concept for all mechs. If my Locust, the lightest mech in the game, is going 171 kph, it should have a very wide turn radius to prevent skidding and simply because the speed won't allow it to turn so tightly without falling over (see cars). But, if it slows down to say 85 kph, the turning circle would be much tighter. SO, if we assume that all mechs are balanced correctly in terms of speed potential and their gyro's ability to keep them upright, the slower their speed the tighter the turning circle regardless of the overall weight of the mech in question.

As I said above, the "agility" that everyone is talking about is only one concept of overall movement for a mech. Speed is engine restrictive and not something that is characterized by the mech itself. Being nimble or quick are both traits that can and should be tweaked. It makes me sad when I'm in my Locust or Cicada and I'm going full bore only to stop and try to back up. When I do it, I feel like I'm moving in soft concrete at which case I don't feel it for too long cause I'm now dead due to a massive inability to change speed and direction. IF we assume that all mechs should keep all targets within their frontal arch with appropriate piloting and maxed efficiencies, then there needs to be something to counter it beyond jump jet stupidity.

[DaZur]

Trauglodyte, on 17 December 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

snip..

I agree as top-speed the results should invert (The faster a mech, regardless of is mass, it's radii should elongate).. That said, in fairness... My "pretty picture" set the premise at 50 kph, so all classes are entering their turn radius at a controlled ground speed.

To expand on both your logical premise and mine, at and below an arbitrary "controlled ground speed", my premise is the correct outcome... but as each class accelerates, the radii would elongate, eventually the results would invert secondary to a mechs tops speed.

Me'thinks we're "both" right...

Side note... I agree with the skidding but that implementation would literally make some peoples brains explode.

Edited by DaZur, 17 December 2013 - 09:20 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

I agree. And it is a pretty picture.

[Almond Brown]

DaZur, on 16 December 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

Okay... pretty picture time.



Here is the present issue that getting lost in all the semantics over how much torso twist a mechs has or how quickly is stops and starts.... "Turn radius".

All mechs regardless of class, weight or mass... all exhibit the same turn radius, assuming they are all traversing as the same linear ground speed. (left Image) This is the real world equivalent of a Dump Truck and a Mini Cooper exhibiting the same turn radius as 35 mph....

The correct / logical application of turn radius, taking into consideration how centrifugal force and linear speed and a mechs mass should influence it's turn radius (right image)...

I'm not discounting all the ancillary stuff (torso / arm range of motion or speed), braking and acceleration etc... The point is, those things should compliment unique turn radius' not being the basis for the argument of whether a mech is agile or not.

Remember all mechs, regardless of mass, rotate on their axis at 41.8 degrees-per-second, that comes out to 8.6 seconds to pivot 360 degrees on axis. Since axial speed is directly linked to a mechs turn radius... all mechs turn radius are the same.

In short, this needs to be unlinked and made unique per weight class.

I need plead my own ignorance on the coding side, but if anyone who might know, could inform us, even at the most basic level, as to what might be involved in doing this "un-linking" as far as it pertains to the actual ground movement mechanics in a game like MWO.

One can not simply assume that having separate turning radii is a 2-hour re-code in the CE3 engine perhaps?

Or are we just "assuming" it was done as it was simply for ease and convenience for the Dev? I heard that doing "real" physics can be difficult to code in games. Isn't that why we also don't have varied gravity on the Maps?

[Almond Brown]

stjobe, on 16 December 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Except, of course, for almost 30 years of BattleTech lore.

So you would equate "Facing" and "Movement Point" in BT/TT to "agility" in MWO? (face palm)

P.S. Sorry, You meant the fiction the writers of the books make up as they go along, seeing as this stuff is not actually real... got it.

Edited by Almond Brown, 17 December 2013 - 09:40 AM.

[DaZur]

Almond Brown, on 17 December 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

I need plead my own ignorance on the coding side, but if anyone who might know, could inform us, even at the most basic level, as to what might be involved in doing this "un-linking" as far as it pertains to the actual ground movement mechanics in a game like MWO.

One can not simply assume that having separate turning radii is a 2-hour re-code in the CE3 engine perhaps?

Or are we just "assuming" it was done as it was simply for ease and convenience for the Dev? I heard that doing "real" physics can be difficult to code in games. Isn't that why we also don't have varied gravity on the Maps?

In short, the easiest way would be to code separate axial rotation speeds for each weight class...

As it stands right now: All mech rotate around their axis @ 41.8 degrees-per-second, which translates roughly to 8.6 seconds to pivot 360 degrees on axis. A clean solution would adjust the axial rotation of each recursive class to rotate faster on axis which would then extend to tighter turn radius'.

Edited by DaZur, 17 December 2013 - 09:52 AM.