362 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Artgathan, on 09 December 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

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!

Now I'm more perplexed as none of that addresses the tangent speed and treats it as linear speed...

[Artgathan]

DaZur, on 09 December 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

Now I'm more perplexed as none of that addresses the tangent speed and treats it as linear speed...

If you're facing a target 100 m away and it's running 250kph tangential the to the circle with radius 100m circumscribed on you (such that the target is getting further away), you can track it.

If the target decides to orbit you at 100m, you can track it (you can actually track targets up to 262 kph as long as they orbit you at 100m).

To see this: create a circle with radius 100 on the Stalker. This creates a circle with a circumference of ~628.31m. The Stalker rotates at 41.81 degree / second, or 11% of the circle per second. 11% of 628.31 is ~72.97m. So the Stalker can follow something orbiting it at 72.97m/s, which translates to 262 kph.

You raise a good point, but the adjusted values mean that everything tracks even better (IE: can follow faster things at shorter ranges).

Edited by Artgathan, 09 December 2013 - 01:57 PM.

[DaZur]

Artgathan, on 09 December 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

You raise a good point, but the adjusted values mean that everything tracks even better (IE: can follow faster things at shorter ranges).

Actually would it not be inverse relative to rotational axis?

[Artgathan]

DaZur, on 09 December 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

Actually would it not be inverse relative to rotational axis?

I ran the values at 50 and 25 meters and both times got higher speeds than what I'd posted originally above (50m: 131 kph vs 125 kph; 25m: 65 kph vs 62 kph). It doesn't appear to be inverse.

However I could be misunderstanding what you said. I interpreted what you wrote as meaning: "if the targets orbits at a shorter range, the tracking speed should decrease faster that the given values suggest".

I am by no means a physicist, engineer or mathematician, though I'm confident in my ability to apply concepts from those fields to problems and use them.

[DaZur]

Artgathan, on 09 December 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

I ran the values at 50 and 25 meters and both times got higher speeds than what I'd posted originally above (50m: 131 kph vs 125 kph; 25m: 65 kph vs 62 kph). It doesn't appear to be inverse.

However I could be misunderstanding what you said. I interpreted what you wrote as meaning: "if the targets orbits at a shorter range, the tracking speed should decrease faster that the given values suggest".

I am by no means a physicist, engineer or mathematician, though I'm confident in my ability to apply concepts from those fields to problems and use them.

I'm no flipping physicist either... (I'm Polish so I have to take off my shoes to bring out my full Abacus)

RE: "If the targets orbits at a shorter range, the tracking speed should decrease"... That I believe is true if you are determining the tangent speed. In this case the target mech "B" draws closer to targeting mech "A" but the speed at which "B" is travelling does not decrease as it closes distance with "B"... I think it's inverse.

I.e... if mech "A" pivoting on it's axis can track mech "B" at 100m... At 50m, mech "A" rotational speed is halved because unlike tangent speed, mech "B" speed does not decrease as it draws closer to the axis.

In short... I think it inverts because we are measuring from the outside in versus the the inside out... if that makes any sense.

Edited by DaZur, 09 December 2013 - 02:40 PM.

[Zakie Chan]

All the need to do is boost med turning rate so its a bit closer to lights.

And then make lights turn tighter, with the lightest of them even better than the higher weight mechs

[Hoaggie]

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

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

If you see an assault going that fast, just shoot the legs. Especially stalkers, since they come stock with low armor values on the legs.

[Artgathan]

DaZur, on 09 December 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

I'm no flipping physicist either... (I'm Polish so I have to take off my shoes to bring out my full Abacus)

RE: "If the targets orbits at a shorter range, the tracking speed should decrease"... That I believe is true if you are determining the tangent speed. In this case the target mech "B" draws closer to targeting mech "A" but the speed at which "B" is travelling does not decrease as it closes distance with "B"... I think it's inverse.

I.e... if mech "A" pivoting on it's axis can track mech "B" at 100m... At 50m, mech "A" rotational speed is halved because unlike tangent speed, mech "B" speed does not decrease as it draws closer to the axis.

In short... I think it inverts because we are measuring from the outside in versus the the inside out... if that makes any sense.

I think we're on the same page. Yes, as the target gets close to the Stalker it must decrease it's speed so that the Stalker can still track it. For instance, if the target stands at 99m and runs 250/265 kph the Stalker won't be able to track it. Inverse sounds right.

Zakie Chan, on 09 December 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

All the need to do is boost med turning rate so its a bit closer to lights.

And then make lights turn tighter, with the lightest of them even better than the higher weight mechs

Fun fact! Every mech in the game (regardless of engine, mech weight, absolute speed, or whatever else you can imagine) has a turning radius of 24.7 meters. What does this mean? If you do a 180 turn while moving at top speed (for your mech - throttle is at 100%, it doesn't matter what the actual speed is) you will end your 180 roughly 49.4 meters from where you started.

In any mech.

With any engine.

[Adiuvo]

Hoaggie, on 09 December 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:

If you see an assault going that fast, just shoot the legs. Especially stalkers, since they come stock with low armor values on the legs.

That build has max armor as well.

[Sable Dove]

Hoaggie, on 08 December 2013 - 08:54 PM, said:

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.

Well the one thing you gathered is something that no one said or implied.


You think the strategy more agile mechs would use is simply to circle constantly? No. The more agile mech would attempt to remain behind the less agile mech almost constantly, which except for certain matchups (Spider vs non-Misery Stalker, for example), is not really possible in the current game, because assaults can turn ridiculously fast. Circling is only used now because it allows lights to remain at top speed while harassing targets. Otherwise they would try to stop behind their enemy, only to find that their enemy is still facing them.

You fail to realize that the strategy that would be used is one that is virtually never used now because hyper-agility renders it unfeasible. The current strategy many lights employ is largely due to the hyper-agility of heavies and assaults making what should be a better strategy completely ineffective.

[Sandpit]

Adiuvo, on 09 December 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Apparently I'm missing it then.

You can make your assault mech go fast. It's possible. You're going to give up armor, weapons, SOMEthing in exchange for that. An assault mech moving at 90/kph is NOT going to have the armor and firepower of an assault moving at 60/kph. Anyone thinking assaults cannot move that fast though, feel free to check out the charger

Joseph Mallan, on 09 December 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

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

Of course not. Pults aren't assault mechs either and even with that torso twist I'll happily take my Stalker 1v1 against any pult you have good sir.
I understand what you're getting at though. Torso twists aren't mobility and agility in my opinion though. (Not to mention my mastered Stalker doesn't turn or twist anywhere NEAR as fast as that catapult)

[Adiuvo]

Sandpit, on 09 December 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

You can make your assault mech go fast. It's possible. You're going to give up armor, weapons, SOMEthing in exchange for that. An assault mech moving at 90/kph is NOT going to have the armor and firepower of an assault moving at 60/kph. Anyone thinking assaults cannot move that fast though, feel free to check out the charger

The thing with that Stalker build is that it gives up absolutely nothing. It's running the max engine, with max armor, with a 45 damage alpha, with 0 crit slots left, and there's still tonnage to spare.

A 90kph assault mech is pointless in MWO, but again, it's not the top speed that matters. It's the fact that, as Artgathan mentioned, you're able to track and respond to whatever mech comes your way no matter how badly you get ambushed. This is what I mean by assault mechs being too agile.

[Sandpit]

Adiuvo, on 09 December 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

The thing with that Stalker build is that it gives up absolutely nothing. It's running the max engine, with max armor, with a 45 damage alpha, with 0 crit slots left, and there's still tonnage to spare.

A 90kph assault mech is pointless in MWO, but again, it's not the top speed that matters. It's the fact that, as Artgathan mentioned, you're able to track and respond to whatever mech comes your way no matter how badly you get ambushed. This is what I mean by assault mechs being too agile.

STK-5M

Ok, show me where I've maxed out an engine, have tons to spare, or even crit slots open.
If you alpha you get hot. Fast. WAY fast.
Sure it has 45 damage alpha but it's also not pinpoint

Now then, I simply cannot wade into battle against faster heavies, just about any medium, or anyone that has a good idea on how to pilot a light because I CAN'T twist, turn, and track those mechs. I have it mastered so my skills are all doubled. I'm telling you flat out with all honesty that what you're saying just isn't factual. I'm not being a dbag I'm just pointing out that I am living proof in contradiction to your statements.

[Aim64C]

aniviron, on 07 December 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

While those are good points, and absolutely things to keep in mind while the game is being balanced, I want you to take a step back for a second. We're months away from the first module of CW, which doesn't even involve combat at all. We're almost certainly years away from having meaningful role warfare, if it ever happens. That's more than long enough of a time that this problem needs to be addressed now, and if need be, can be adjusted back down later.

I'm not as optimistic as you that the first coming of CW will herald a new golden age that will save us all and restore balance to the weight classes. Please keep in mind that one of the three (mandatory) modes that will determine if a planet is conquered is deathmatch, and another is Conquest, as it exists now. I very very much doubt that having a galaxy map will change the fact that deathmatch and Conquest (without some big changes) are not gametypes where being a light mech is terribly relevant. Owing to this fact, I am also not holding out much hope that attack and defend will wind up being the place where lights shine, seeing as it is being designed by the same people.

You misunderstand.

I wasn't suggesting changes to MWO.

I was suggesting how a game featuring the BattleTech universe would address the issue of agility, weight classes, etc.

Unless I specifically mention "these should be done in MWO" - my statements should always be taken under the context that MWO is a dead project, the developers should be subject to criminal investigation, and only the art work of this game should be salvaged to be ported over to a different game engine that can handle the battlefield requirements.

You mention years for CW?

Give me the art assets of this game and four recruits, and I could have a whole game to play with a wide array of features (that actually work) within 18 months. I can't guarantee balancing - but I can surpass all of MWO within a year (I would actually say within six months - but I'm giving myself six months to get myself back into the scripting environment - I've been out of it for a while).

The most time consuming thing is artwork. Models, textures, and animations or rigging for real-time IK solvers is time consuming. Scripting entire new weapons and weapon features is a day's worth of work and a week's worth of testing/refining (though experience helps improve first-implementation results).

Of course - I'd be scrapping CryEngine - which would be a major improvement.

I'm not saying it would be without its challenges or unexpected difficulties - but there is absolutely no pace to their development of this game. At all. Most of what has been done amounts to the addition of new models and animations akin to the custom weapons, armor, and characters that people add into games as mods by the gigabytes each and every day. And they did that with a six-month marketing campaign.

*gently pushes over table*

I think I've expressed my opinion on the matter, now.

[Artgathan]

Sandpit, on 09 December 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

STK-5M

Ok, show me where I've maxed out an engine, have tons to spare, or even crit slots open.
If you alpha you get hot. Fast. WAY fast.
Sure it has 45 damage alpha but it's also not pinpoint

Now then, I simply cannot wade into battle against faster heavies, just about any medium, or anyone that has a good idea on how to pilot a light because I CAN'T twist, turn, and track those mechs. I have it mastered so my skills are all doubled. I'm telling you flat out with all honesty that what you're saying just isn't factual. I'm not being a dbag I'm just pointing out that I am living proof in contradiction to your statements.

You should be able to track any mech moving 115 kph @ 50m just by turning. If you throw in the torso twist, you should be able to track targets moving up to 315 kph (in short bursts due to the limitations imposed by torso twisting). Even at 25m you should be able to track mechs going about 64 kph (turning only).

If you're results aren't like this you might want to consider altering your mouse's DPI, or practicing fighting at short range against mobile targets. I've played (often) as a Jenner against Stalkers that were able to acquire me through clever maneuvering at close range - its not impossible.

[Adiuvo]

Sandpit, on 09 December 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

STK-5M

Ok, show me where I've maxed out an engine, have tons to spare, or even crit slots open.
If you alpha you get hot. Fast. WAY fast.
Sure it has 45 damage alpha but it's also not pinpoint

Now then, I simply cannot wade into battle against faster heavies, just about any medium, or anyone that has a good idea on how to pilot a light because I CAN'T twist, turn, and track those mechs. I have it mastered so my skills are all doubled. I'm telling you flat out with all honesty that what you're saying just isn't factual. I'm not being a dbag I'm just pointing out that I am living proof in contradiction to your statements.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1ff64aa11eaf82c

Optimizing that...

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...7b739464e58aa1a

Yes, it will get hot if you alpha fire. That's why people typically fire one side at a time with a short delay between.

If you want a pinpoint 40 damage alpha: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...a4572d507934160

I'm not sure if you're wading into terrible positions, but the people I play with have absolutely zero issues tracking mediums, lights, or whatever, in a Stalker. The point of my argument is that if you get ambushed through bad positioning by a light mech or medium, which should be a situation that should leave you dead considering you're basically supposed to be a walking turret that soaks and deals massive amounts of damage, you'll be able to respond quickly and effectively to that light or medium and assuming proper piloting, keep them in your sights the majority of the time. Artgathan actually worked out the math on this. Unless that light is facehugging you you'll be able to track them.

Here's an example of how easy it is to track quick mechs. Yeah, that has JJs and that X5 is a terrible pilot but notice Villz never put his back against a wall, which would have limited the ability for the enemy mech to move. The same thing would have been possible without JJs, and therefore in a Stalker.

You can also look through Delta Spectra's videos for actual Stalker examples. There are many.

I've also had no problems tracking things and keeping up with lights in the off times that I pilot a Stalker.

Anyways, there's a reason why it's pretty well agreed upon in the competitive community that a top light pilot will lose to a top assault pilot 1v1, no matter the situation. Assaults move to quickly for the quick damage they're able to deal compared to a light's ability to maneuver.

[Hoaggie]

Sable Dove, on 09 December 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

Well the one thing you gathered is something that no one said or implied.


You think the strategy more agile mechs would use is simply to circle constantly? No. The more agile mech would attempt to remain behind the less agile mech almost constantly, which except for certain matchups (Spider vs non-Misery Stalker, for example), is not really possible in the current game, because assaults can turn ridiculously fast. Circling is only used now because it allows lights to remain at top speed while harassing targets. Otherwise they would try to stop behind their enemy, only to find that their enemy is still facing them.

You fail to realize that the strategy that would be used is one that is virtually never used now because hyper-agility renders it unfeasible. The current strategy many lights employ is largely due to the hyper-agility of heavies and assaults making what should be a better strategy completely ineffective.

Wow. Just wow. You described assault mech's ability to rotate in place as "hyper-agility"
You arguement is invalid.

[Sandpit]

Artgathan, on 09 December 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

due to the limitations imposed by torso twisting

which disproves the OP

Adiuvo, on 09 December 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1ff64aa11eaf82c

Optimizing that...

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...7b739464e58aa1a

Yes, it will get hot if you alpha fire. That's why people typically fire one side at a time with a short delay between.

If you want a pinpoint 40 damage alpha: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...a4572d507934160

I'm not sure if you're wading into terrible positions, but the people I play with have absolutely zero issues tracking mediums, lights, or whatever, in a Stalker. The point of my argument is that if you get ambushed through bad positioning by a light mech or medium, which should be a situation that should leave you dead considering you're basically supposed to be a walking turret that soaks and deals massive amounts of damage, you'll be able to respond quickly and effectively to that light or medium and assuming proper piloting, keep them in your sights the majority of the time. Artgathan actually worked out the math on this. Unless that light is facehugging you you'll be able to track them.

Here's an example of how easy it is to track quick mechs. Yeah, that has JJs and that X5 is a terrible pilot but notice Villz never put his back against a wall, which would have limited the ability for the enemy mech to move. The same thing would have been possible without JJs, and therefore in a Stalker.

You can also look through Delta Spectra's videos for actual Stalker examples. There are many.

I've also had no problems tracking things and keeping up with lights in the off times that I pilot a Stalker.

Anyways, there's a reason why it's pretty well agreed upon in the competitive community that a top light pilot will lose to a top assault pilot 1v1, no matter the situation. Assaults move to quickly for the quick damage they're able to deal compared to a light's ability to maneuver.

You're assuming or implying I do bad in that build? lol ok

It's a fact that you simply cannot turn and twist as fast as a light mech. This is especially true if they're efficient at face hugging, using JJs, etc. to improve these mobility factors.

[Artgathan]

Sandpit, on 09 December 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

which disproves the OP

No it doesn't - read what I wrote again. Without the torso twist you can track mechs moving 115 kph at 50m away from you. That's every mech in the game above 40 tons. If you include the torso twist you can track targets traveling 300+ kph at 50m (which means you can actually track mechs moving 150 kph at 25m). The "short bursts" are from the time when you go from being fully twisted one direction to being fully twisted the other. Simply resetting this (by twisting back to your original position) gives you a fresh "burst" to track with. You can actually reset for a second burst in less than one second (faster than a light can actually circle you). This brief less than a second of not being able to track the target is what stops assaults from being even more ridiculously OP.

The OP isn't talking about Top Speed. It's talking about Torso Twist / Turn / Arm Reflex speeds, which are too high. I've shown that Torso Twist / Turn / Arm Reflex speeds are too high, not the opposite. If you didn't understand that, I suggest going back and reading what I wrote a second time carefully.

[Adiuvo]

Sandpit, on 09 December 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

You're assuming or implying I do bad in that build? lol ok

It's a fact that you simply cannot turn and twist as fast as a light mech. This is especially true if they're efficient at face hugging, using JJs, etc. to improve these mobility factors.

I haven't implied anything past what you've said yourself.

Artgathan is the only one who's provided facts here. You can't really argue with the math. I've also given you examples from two of the best pilots in the game.