362 replies to this topic

[Smitti]

OneEyed Jack, on 08 December 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

Seriously? It's called "suspension of disbelief," and if you can't manage that, you're playing the wrong game.

In the BT universe, mechs are the dominant war machines primarily because of mobility.

BTW

Oh I find it quite easy to suspend my disbelief. Was just sayin' is all.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I have to agree that agility is out of whack in this game.

Now I will say...a lot of this requires hit registration to be on point (which it really isn't right now).

But Assaults are much too quick and agile. My mastered Highlander has no problems tracking. I can even do it on my $350 Dell laptop with an on-board graphics card (when I'm slumming).

Lights are probably fine, Mediums could stand to be some what more agile, while Heavies and Assaults need to be tuned down.

This will become even more apparent when real game modes (such as Attack/Defend) start showing up.

[aniviron]

Greyboots, on 08 December 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

The game has a fair bit left in it but it's already in the early stages of dying. Too much is out of kilter and they lack the manpower to do anything about it. Those who remember Auto Assault will know what I'm on about. Generally the game was interesting enough to survive but the Dev team was just too small to fix issues in a timely manner and add content at a reasonable pace. This put the game in a position where ONE bad decision killed it.

MWO is already there. Discontent is high. Every decision, if it goes the wrong way, has the potential to be "the straw that broke the camel's back". Will everyone leave? No. But those who remain won't be enough to support the game's existence.

It's a shame but this is how it often goes with small dev teams.

I still refuse the believe that PGI just doesn't have the manpower to fix this game. Games like Natural Selection 2 with a total staff count of six are doing better. NS2 was released Oct. 31, 2012; in that time, the entire game has been reworked, almost every weapon has been rebalanced, there isn't a single map that hasn't had the majority of it tweaked at some point. Multiple new maps and tech expansions have come out, all for free. In roughly the same one-year timeframe as MWO, NS2 has gone from being a fun but unbalanced game like MWO to a game with a strong competitive scene worldwide, and public matches that are coming closer and closer to having the kind of balance that is usually attributed to games like Starcraft- and just like the MWO team, the NS2 team has been fighting with engine issues the whole time, yet managed to get DX11 support, increase framerates, and add additional graphical fidelity.

So what you're telling me is that with almost ten times the manpower, PGI can't manage to balance this game out?

I just have to believe that there's something else going on that we don't know about.

[Greyboots]

aniviron, on 08 December 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

I still refuse the believe that PGI just doesn't have the manpower to fix this game.

Unfortunately? Belief does not effect reality in the slightest.

I'd love to have your optimism but I just don't see anything to justify that optimism.

[Sable Dove]

Hoaggie, on 07 December 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

If an assault mech puts on a engine large enough to keep up with mediums it’s going to have about the same armament as a medium. There are major drawback do doing that.

If I see an atlas flying along at 50kph with full weapons, I realize that it probably has an XL engine, or it has massively shaved its armor on the legs. If you have a fast assault, then it’s not going to have a high damage output. Additionally, because of the heat balance, there is no reason for an assault to carry many weapons if they are just going to overheat at an accelerated rate.

So my Atlas with a STD300 (50+KPH) that has no problem tracking just about anything (with arm-lock on), is going to have the same armament as a medium? Pretty sure most mediums can't mount 38 tons of weapons and ammo, 6 tons of extra heatsinks, 3 tons of equipment, and still have 18 tons of armour.

The medium may run 80-90% faster, but it can't outmaneuver the Atlas. And when it comes down to it, if the assault is slower, the medium will inevitably have to come to it anyways and get killed by a hyper-agile mech that has more weapons and equipment than some mediums have tonnage.

Assaults should be spearheads, not skirmishers. If an Atlas gets left alone, a medium should be able to outmaneuver it at least enough to deal significant damage, if not kill it.

In terms of balance (of this specific game), in a 1-on-1 fight, a medium and assault should be roughly equal; the medium is agile enough to deny the assault the full use of its weapons (whether by out-turning the torso, or by moving fast enough that the mech cannot fire as fast as the weapons' recycle times).

Similarly, a light and heavy would be roughly on even footing, for the same reasons.

In the current game, with such high agility all-around, it's more or less Assault>heavy>light>medium. Except in specific matchups, assaults can track lights with ease, and can often kill with only two or three clicks of a button.

Tabletop doesn't work here, because tabletop doesn't account for actual pilots with actual aim, and tabletop doesn't have a player for each mech, who has to sit the game out if their mech dies. For the sake of balance, MWO can't have mechs that can't compete on their own. Especially not when the number of players on each team is intended to be equal. In terms of canon, maybe assaults are okay as being better than every other mech, but in MWO, that's not fun unless you're an assault pilot.

[Hoaggie]

Praetor Shepard, on 07 December 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:

Are you aware of how Engine size increases torso and arm yaw and pitch speeds and turn speed for example?

Yes, I'm aware of this feature.

stjobe, on 08 December 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

We're not even talking about speed here, we're talking agility and tracking ability.

Fully mastered, and with its stock 300-rated engine, an Atlas is nimble enough to track any 'mech in the game at ranges over 50m. Just by turning. No arm movement, not torso twist, just turning. A and D keys, no mouse required.

That's a stock engine Atlas, and you have to get under 50m and go 170kph to stop it being able to track you by just turning.

Add torso twist to that, and it's able to track a target going 180kph at ranges over 25m.

Tell me what enormous sacrifice the poor Atlas had to make to use the stock engine it came out of the factory with?

Sable Dove, on 08 December 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

So my Atlas with a STD300 (50+KPH) that has no problem tracking just about anything (with arm-lock on), is going to have the same armament as a medium? Pretty sure most mediums can't mount 38 tons of weapons and ammo, 6 tons of extra heatsinks, 3 tons of equipment, and still have 18 tons of armour.

The medium may run 80-90% faster, but it can't outmaneuver the Atlas. And when it comes down to it, if the assault is slower, the medium will inevitably have to come to it anyways and get killed by a hyper-agile mech that has more weapons and equipment than some mediums have tonnage.

Assaults should be spearheads, not skirmishers. If an Atlas gets left alone, a medium should be able to outmaneuver it at least enough to deal significant damage, if not kill it.

In terms of balance (of this specific game), in a 1-on-1 fight, a medium and assault should be roughly equal; the medium is agile enough to deny the assault the full use of its weapons (whether by out-turning the torso, or by moving fast enough that the mech cannot fire as fast as the weapons' recycle times).

Similarly, a light and heavy would be roughly on even footing, for the same reasons.

In the current game, with such high agility all-around, it's more or less Assault>heavy>light>medium. Except in specific matchups, assaults can track lights with ease, and can often kill with only two or three clicks of a button.

Tabletop doesn't work here, because tabletop doesn't account for actual pilots with actual aim, and tabletop doesn't have a player for each mech, who has to sit the game out if their mech dies. For the sake of balance, MWO can't have mechs that can't compete on their own. Especially not when the number of players on each team is intended to be equal. In terms of canon, maybe assaults are okay as being better than every other mech, but in MWO, that's not fun unless you're an assault pilot.

The one thing that I gained from your combined walls of text is that you think running in a circle is a valid military maneuver.

Even if assaults turned slower, they would still kill you. Not everyone, just the two of you. Because they would just wait for you to run in front of them again with your dastardly cleaver circle maneuver.

I’m sure you will be able to get the devs on your side of this issue, because they are also really bad at the game.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

As to the twisting issue, buy a mouse with multiple DPI configs. Program those configs and program a button on mouse to switch the DPI based on your current need..... problem solved. ( you can even do a macro and have it zoom and lower you DPI for you!!!)

However I would agree that on the whole Assault and Heavy mechs torso twist to fast. a reduction in torso twisting speed would help a bit with the "class" warfare ( what a joke with no weight limits, ie go big or go home ) but its not the end all problem solver.

[DaZur]

stjobe, on 08 December 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

We're not even talking about speed here, we're talking agility and tracking ability.

Fully mastered, and with its stock 300-rated engine, an Atlas is nimble enough to track any 'mech in the game at ranges over 50m. Just by turning. No arm movement, not torso twist, just turning. A and D keys, no mouse required.

That's a stock engine Atlas, and you have to get under 50m and go 170kph to stop it being able to track you by just turning.

Add torso twist to that, and it's able to track a target going 180kph at ranges over 25m.

Tell me what enormous sacrifice the poor Atlas had to make to use the stock engine it came out of the factory with?

No offense stjobe but I can drop a STD 200 into the Atlas and still track a fast-mover at range...

The ability to track a fast mover with just axis pivot is available to virtually all mechs. Out to around 90 - 100m regardless of class or engine size. I'm no mathematician so I'm not about to tote out some equation but In short, circular motion predicates an object has to travel at (x-speed) to match the rotation of the object at the center of the axis based on it's distance from said center axis...

What you attribute to "agility" is just physics...

In order for an assault or heavy mech to not track a fast mech at range, it's rotation on axis speed would have to be as slow as a frozen fart or the mech being tracked would need to move at a speed equivalent to atmospheric re-entry...

[Sandpit]

My assaults would beg to differ from the OP on just how "fast and agile" they are. Want to know how I usually get killed? When I lose situation awareness (IE I'm being dumb and not paying attention) and get caught too far out on my own. Want to know why that usually leads to me going boom?

Well, it's simply because i'm NOT fast and agile enough to pull back out of danger.
Could I adjust some of my builds to be faster and more agile? Sure, but then I wouldn't have 5LL, max armor, and tons of DHS to do the damage output I like with those types of builds.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 09 December 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

My assaults would beg to differ from the OP on just how "fast and agile" they are. Want to know how I usually get killed? When I lose situation awareness (IE I'm being dumb and not paying attention) and get caught too far out on my own. Want to know why that usually leads to me going boom?

Well, it's simply because i'm NOT fast and agile enough to pull back out of danger.
Could I adjust some of my builds to be faster and more agile? Sure, but then I wouldn't have 5LL, max armor, and tons of DHS to do the damage output I like with those types of builds.

What cracks me up is I am the last to engage thanks to 53.3 KpH of my (F)Atlas... an when I die I am always alone? So fast guys... You wanna have me soak for you? Cover me!

[Adiuvo]

Sandpit, on 09 December 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

My assaults would beg to differ from the OP on just how "fast and agile" they are. Want to know how I usually get killed? When I lose situation awareness (IE I'm being dumb and not paying attention) and get caught too far out on my own. Want to know why that usually leads to me going boom?

Well, it's simply because i'm NOT fast and agile enough to pull back out of danger.
Could I adjust some of my builds to be faster and more agile? Sure, but then I wouldn't have 5LL, max armor, and tons of DHS to do the damage output I like with those types of builds.

On a Stalker 5M that build moves 65kph. Hardly slow.

[Joseph Mallan]

Adiuvo, on 09 December 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

On a Stalker 5M that build moves 65kph. Hardly slow.

My Kintaro runs at 103.7... You is slow bro!


Basic Speed tweak only.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 December 2013 - 11:26 AM.

[Sandpit]

Adiuvo, on 09 December 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

On a Stalker 5M that build moves 65kph. Hardly slow.

So you're telling me that 65/kph is "fast and agile" lol ok we will jsut agree to disagree. Oh and one more point? Uhm EVERY mech has the same abilities.

That means it's balanced.

If every other mech on the field is doing 80+/kph then yes, 65 is "slow" it's relative my good sir

[Adiuvo]

Sandpit, on 09 December 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

So you're telling me that 65/kph is "fast and agile" lol ok we will jsut agree to disagree. Oh and one more point? Uhm EVERY mech has the same abilities.

That means it's balanced.

If every other mech on the field is doing 80+/kph then yes, 65 is "slow" it's relative my good sir

Agility isn't referencing top speed. It's your mech's torso twist and turn speed that's the problem.

There aren't any other mechs that can mount 5 LLs with as much armor as the Stalker and still have a decent speed. Again, assault mechs can't have all the weapons, all the armor, and still have the capability to respond to any threat as well.

[Sandpit]

Adiuvo, on 09 December 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Agility isn't referencing top speed. It's your mech's torso twist and turn speed that's the problem.

There aren't any other mechs that can mount 5 LLs with as much armor as the Stalker and still have a decent speed. Again, assault mechs can't have all the weapons, all the armor, and still have the capability to respond to any threat as well.

that's kinda my point............

[Adiuvo]

Sandpit, on 09 December 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

that's kinda my point............

Apparently I'm missing it then.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 09 December 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

So you're telling me that 65/kph is "fast and agile" lol ok we will jsut agree to disagree. Oh and one more point? Uhm EVERY mech has the same abilities.

That means it's balanced.

If every other mech on the field is doing 80+/kph then yes, 65 is "slow" it's relative my good sir

So every mech can Torso twist like a Catapult? Cause I would have loved for my Stalkers to have had that ability!

[Artgathan]

Sandpit, on 09 December 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

So you're telling me that 65/kph is "fast and agile" lol ok we will jsut agree to disagree. Oh and one more point? Uhm EVERY mech has the same abilities.

That means it's balanced.

If every other mech on the field is doing 80+/kph then yes, 65 is "slow" it's relative my good sir

Adiuvo, on 09 December 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Agility isn't referencing top speed. It's your mech's torso twist and turn speed that's the problem.

There aren't any other mechs that can mount 5 LLs with as much armor as the Stalker and still have a decent speed. Again, assault mechs can't have all the weapons, all the armor, and still have the capability to respond to any threat as well.

Just some input:

That Stalker carries a 310 Engine, giving it a turn speed of 41.81 degrees / second. This means that the Stalker can effectively track a target moving 126 kph at 50 metres.

That's pretty fast, IMO.

[DaZur]

Artgathan, on 09 December 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Just some input:

That Stalker carries a 310 Engine, giving it a turn speed of 41.81 degrees / second. This means that the Stalker can effectively track a target moving 126 kph at 50 metres.

That's pretty fast, IMO.

Alright... now I need to see "maths" because that doesn't sound kosher.

[Artgathan]

DaZur, on 09 December 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

Alright... now I need to see "maths" because that doesn't sound kosher.

Ok, per smurfy a Stalker with a 310 engine turns at 41.81 degrees per second (I don't think this includes the elite efficiences which would actually make this even faster).

From the study of ballistic projectiles, we know that a difference of 1 degree offsets an aiming post by 1.52 metres at a distance of 91.44 metres. What does this mean?

Say you're aiming at a post in the ground that is 91.44 metres away from you. You then shift your aim 1 degree to either side of the target, and put a new post there. The two posts will be 1.52 metres apart.

This gives us the formula:

Tracking Speed = ((Turning Speed) * 1.52 ) / 91.44 * Distance

We know that the Stalker tracks at 41.81 degrees per second. This means that in one second, it could go from targeting 1 post that was 91.44 meters away from the Stalker, to targeting a second post that was 63.55 meters to the side of the first post.

This means that if something decides to run from post one to post two, the Stalker can follow that target as long as it takes the target one second (or less) to reach the second post. Therefore, the Stalker can track a target running up to 228.78 kph at a distance of 91.44m.

By manipulating the range we want to track something at, we can determine that the Stalker can target a target moving X kph at Range Y:

• 10 m -> 25 kph
  
• 25 m -> 62 kph
  
• 50 m -> 125 kph
  
• 100 m -> 250 kph

Hope that helps!

For a more in-depth analysis, check out the thread I've got going here: http://mwomercs.com/...-class-balance/. The discussion about turning speeds starts around page 5. Cheers!

Edited by Artgathan, 09 December 2013 - 01:12 PM.