362 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

The Highlander Pilot also would have been eaten alive if not for the missile assists that killed the X-5!

[Trauglodyte]

Eh, I don't know. Looked like a lot of those AC20s were landing but weren't doing anything. Honestly, its really semantics in that case given a better aim on the part of the Highlander.

[Mr 144]

sigh...more math in a vacuum.

Agility should be defined by a very complex model with variables such as...
Turning speed
Twist speed
Arm reflex
Twist range
Arm range
Aceleration values
Deceleration values
Overall Speed
Jump Jets (and the variables within)
Hardpoint Layout
Size Class (bump-in-the-road penalties)

Cherry picking "turning speed" as the defining "can't argue the math" is very incomplete. Heavies and Assaults have not "circle of death'd" since CB...and rightly so. Why is the circle of death acceptable when discussing lights vs assaults? JJs crossing inside this mythical 50m circle to shorten distance/time and reduce enemy tracking...erratic acceleration/decelleration with complete directional reversal...hit-and-run passes...back-camping...knee humping, etc...and from the assault side, back turning...torso flipping...s-curve defense...etc. Why is it the only pilots now who engage in the noobish circle of death are lights?...and then complain about assault turning speed....what is it those "top tier" players always say?....adapt...everyone else has...stop the circle jerk

You can't just single out one formula for turning speed and equate that to agility...they are two very different things. A hunchback 4SP for example I would define as the epitome of "agile" in MWO despite lacking the speed of a light and a relatively small engine size modifier. The 4SP's "agility" has very, very little to do with "turning speed"...it's a combination of all the above mentioned variable except JJs....which is why a JJ capable mech can still keep up with it's agility.

See? complex math, not one single simple formula.

More to the point, they've (PGI) has already gone to great lengths to nerf agility. 10-20 degree arm sway (replacing the 40 degree standard of the original mechs)...atrocious hardpoint distribution encouraging full dual-reticule alpha's...gimpy twist ranges...convergence delay removal...extreme movement penalties for heavier mechs without JJs...etc.

Reducing the playability of assaults and heavies is not the solution...creating advantages or "roles" for lights and mediums is.

Edited by Mr 144, 11 December 2013 - 10:38 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

What Mr 144 said (but nerf JJ agility some )

Edited by Trauglodyte, 11 December 2013 - 10:35 AM.

[Mr 144]

Trauglodyte, on 11 December 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

What Mr 144 said (but nerf JJ agility some )

Oh trust me, I despise JJs and the nerf it brought to non-jump capable heavies and assaults

[DaZur]

Mr 144, on 11 December 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

sigh...more math in a vacuum.

Reducing the playability of assaults and heavies is not the solution...creating advantages or "roles" for lights and mediums is.

Might want to pull your babushka from over your eyes before forming your complete opinion...

The OPs original premise focused exclusively on Assaults an Heavies being able to track a small / fast target "without" torso rotation... Thus the "vacuumous math" only was relevant to that point.

That said, of course your bullet list of considerations are completely relevant to the discussion of "agility" and I find no fault in them. (Not buying the JJ stuff though)...

​All being said, a good start to diversifying classes and the role the fulfill would to break the generic turn radius and instead institute a more class-relevant turn radius so Mediums and Lights core handling ability / maneuverability is fully supported.

Right now agility is limited by the fact that despite their speed advantages, Mediums and lights "handling abilities" are the same as Heavies and Assaults...

In short... while they are faster, they are not.... well, "more agile".

Edited by DaZur, 11 December 2013 - 11:04 AM.

[Mr 144]

DaZur, on 11 December 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

[/size]
Might want to pull your babushka from over your eyes before forming your complete opinion...

The OPs original premise focused exclusively on Assaults an Heavies being able to track a small / fast target "without" torso rotation... Thus the "vacuumous math" only was relevant to that point.

That said, of course your bullet list of considerations are completely relevant to the discussion of "agility" and I find no fault in them. (Not buying the JJ stuff though)...

​All being said, a good start to diversifying classes and the role the fulfill would to break the generic turn radius and instead institute a more class-relevant turn radius so Mediums and Lights core handling ability / maneuverability is fully supported.

Right now agility is limited by the fact that despite their speed advantages, Mediums and lights "handling abilities" are the same as Heavies and Assaults...

In short... while they are faster, they are not.... well, "more agile".

Well, let's just look at agiilty shall we?.....

Let's for a moment assume SRMs are working,,,

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
64 total CT armor to kill
Half-zombie mode
Torso twist speed increased by 25%
Torso pitch speed increased by 10%

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
64 total ST armor to kill (elite's can aim, remember?)
No Zombie what-so-ever

So, tell me how my heavie's agility is soooo OP vs a medium. I have a +10 dmg alpha potential with huge agility sacrifices to do so....speed...twist degree...arm degree...twist speed...pitch speed...a 5 degree torso pitch angle...overall speed....yep, omg I'm soooo OP in my heavy brawler.......

Assaults Vs. Lights takes this farther, but we're pushing the limits on what the typical forumite can understand based on math....

Edited by Mr 144, 11 December 2013 - 12:29 PM.

[Hoaggie]

kapusta11, on 11 December 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

I failed to see the reason why mechs speed should be nerfed, can somebody explain in two words?

**** players

[Artgathan]

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

Well, let's just look at agiilty shall we?.....

Let's for a moment assume SRMs are working,,,

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
64 total CT armor to kill
Half-zombie mode
Torso twist speed increased by 25%
Torso pitch speed increased by 10%

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
64 total ST armor to kill (elite's can aim, remember?)
No Zombie what-so-ever

So, tell me how my heavie's agility is soooo OP vs a medium. I have a +10 dmg alpha potential with huge agility sacrifices to do so....speed...twist degree...arm degree...twist speed...pitch speed...a 5 degree torso pitch angle...overall speed....yep, omg I'm soooo OP in my heavy brawler.......

Assaults Vs. Lights takes this farther, but we're pushing the limits on what the typical forumite can understand based on math....

Wow man. That really blew me away. When you compared two mechs, both designed to be agile, and concluded that they were both agile - whoa. Didn't see that one coming.

You're missing the point. The point is that if I take an Atlas with a 300 Engine (IE: "not agile") and tell it to "keep your crosshairs over the locust running at 171kph" it can do this just by holding down the A/D keys at a range of 60m. If you throw in torso twist / arm movement, it can track the Locust until the Locust is roughly 15m away.

That is what we're talking about. The ability of a mech to put it's crosshairs over another mech that is running tangentially nearby.

This isn't about circle strafing. This is literally "no light mech can ever escape from the crosshairs of the slowest mech in the game".

[Sandpit]

Artgathan, on 11 December 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

This isn't about circle strafing. This is literally "no light mech can ever escape from the crosshairs of the slowest mech in the game".

which just isn't accurate

[Mr 144]

Artgathan, on 11 December 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Wow man. That really blew me away. When you compared two mechs, both designed to be agile, and concluded that they were both agile - whoa. Didn't see that one coming.

You're missing the point. The point is that if I take an Atlas with a 300 Engine (IE: "not agile") and tell it to "keep your crosshairs over the locust running at 171kph" it can do this just by holding down the A/D keys at a range of 60m. If you throw in torso twist / arm movement, it can track the Locust until the Locust is roughly 15m away.

That is what we're talking about. The ability of a mech to put it's crosshairs over another mech that is running tangentially nearby.

This isn't about circle strafing. This is literally "no light mech can ever escape from the crosshairs of the slowest mech in the game".

sooooo...two mechs of different weight classes designed to be agile is NOT a valid comparison? Gotcha....carry on with your noobish QQ

Edited by Mr 144, 11 December 2013 - 12:40 PM.

[Artgathan]

Mr 144, on 11 December 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

sooooo...two mechs of different weight classes designed to be agile is NOT a valid comparison? Gotcha....carry on with your noobish QQ

The point is that we weren't talking about comparing agile mechs vs agile mechs. We were comparing non-agile mechs to agile mechs, and discovered that hey - the "non-agile" mech is capable of the agility required to keep up with the agile mech.

[Mr 144]

Artgathan, on 11 December 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

The point is that we weren't talking about comparing agile mechs vs agile mechs. We were comparing non-agile mechs to agile mechs, and discovered that hey - the "non-agile" mech is capable of the agility required to keep up with the agile mech.

oh, so we're comparing apples to oranges...gotcha...well that just makes this a pointless thread that ignores facts....funny how when math formula's were on your side, it was all "can't argue the math"...now, with educatated concepts it becomes strictly QQ

[Artgathan]

Mr 144, on 11 December 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

oh, so we're comparing apples to oranges...gotcha...well that just makes this a pointless thread that ignores facts....funny how when math formula's were on your side, it was all "can't argue the math"...now, with educatated concepts it becomes strictly QQ

The math shows that the "most agile" mech in the game (190 Engine Locust) cannot out-manuver the "least agile" mech in the game (300 Engine Atlas). That is what it shows. Your "facts" are irrelevant to the discussion. No one was talking about how far anyone can twist.

[Mr 144]

Artgathan, on 11 December 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

The math shows that the "most agile" mech in the game (190 Engine Locust) cannot out-manuver the "least agile" mech in the game (300 Engine Atlas). That is what it shows. Your "facts" are irrelevant to the discussion. No one was talking about how far anyone can twist.

where was it determined that the locust creature was the "most agile mech in the game"....and by what criterea was this determined? Lulz @ facts being irrelevant...the number one sign of a failed argument

Edited by Mr 144, 11 December 2013 - 12:55 PM.

[DaZur]

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

Well, let's just look at agiilty shall we?.....

Let's for a moment assume SRMs are working,,,

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
64 total CT armor to kill
Half-zombie mode
Torso twist speed increased by 25%
Torso pitch speed increased by 10%

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 total tracking ability ( 104 degree blind spot)
39% heat efficiency
350 XL engine
83.2 kph
64 total ST armor to kill (elite's can aim, remember?)
No Zombie what-so-ever

So, tell me how my heavie's agility is soooo OP vs a medium. I have a +10 dmg alpha potential with huge agility sacrifices to do so....speed...twist degree...arm degree...twist speed...pitch speed...a 5 degree torso pitch angle...overall speed....yep, omg I'm soooo OP in my heavy brawler.......

Assaults Vs. Lights takes this farther, but we're pushing the limits on what the typical forumite can understand based on math....

I went ahead struck out everything that has absolutely no relevance to "agility" for ya... If you are going to do "compare and contrast", let's keep it as such as it pertains to this ubiquitous "agility".

An elusive Running back's "agility" is not defined by how far he can rotate his torso nor how far or how fast he can flail his arms around.

In the same way.... a mechs "agility" has little to do with it's torso twist nor the horizontal swing or speed of it's arms... "Agility" is the mechs ability to maneuver across terrain... In context to MW:O "agility" as discussed in this thread has everything to do with a mechs ability to traverse the battlefield spatially.

Fact is as Artgathan has attempted to explain, as presently implemented, all mechs regardless of size, weight color or disposition to the color green, rotate on their axis as 41.8 degrees per second as well as resigned to a turn radius of 24.7 meters...

​In context that's the real-world equivalent of a Smart Car and a Cement mixer possessing the same handling characteristics. Oh for sure... one is faster than the other, but they both handle identically.

Our argument is that clearly the two should not handle identically, regardless of their individual quirks. The smaller / lighter a mech is the faster is should be able to pivot on it's axis and the tighter it's turn radius should be...

The ancillary stuff I struck out without a doubt contribute to a mechs overall... for lack of a better qualifier, "athleticism"... and have merit but they do not in any way define a mechs "agility".

Edited by DaZur, 11 December 2013 - 01:07 PM.

[Adiuvo]

Mr 144, on 11 December 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

where was it determined that the locust creature was the "most agile mech in the game"....and by what criterea was this determined? Lulz @ facts being irrelevant...the number one sign of a failed argument

Do you really need to do this kind of thing?

[Adiuvo]

Nimura Nekogami, on 11 December 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

Isnt it supposed to be like this? A 35 ton Mech shouldnt take out an 80+ ton Mech alone.
ahhhhhh i get it......you want to f*** Assaults again like in CB. (we all did this )

Cant agree with some of you guys here. Tons should matter all the time. This is Battletech not Quake. If you cant realise that a 50 ton Mech should loose against an 100 ton Mech you dont have Battletech in your mind.
(or read to many times the "Grey Death" books )
Why arent you guys playing Hawken? I assume in Hawken the tons arent that much of an factor.

Im sorry but i dont get the idea behind this thread and this discussion.

MWO is made with the idea that all classes are combat viable. If you want to go out in your assault mech, make one click and kill everything, and never have to worry about dying, go play MW4 single player with heat turned off. This game should be fun for everyone, not just assault pilots.

The HGN was ambushed out in the open, alone. This is precisely the situation where an assault mech should die to a lighter mech.

Joseph Mallan, on 11 December 2013 - 04:51 AM, said:

For one, at the top Elo there should not be "plenty of people". That kinda is the point of being an Elite player. And also at the Top Elo it is expected that you should be capable of such tasks. I mean really? Show me the average Joe's doing these things and you may have a point but showing me the "Top Players" doing it is expected IYAM.

Balance can only be done at the top. This has been shown through many games... Starcraft II, League, DoTA, Street Fighter. Balancing around some random ******* is going to lower the skill ceiling of the game and destroy any competitive community, simply because there's nothing to strive for.

Joseph Mallan, on 11 December 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

The Highlander Pilot also would have been eaten alive if not for the missile assists that killed the X-5!

No, he wouldn't have. The video's original purpose was to show how broken HSR was at the higher pings. Trust me, Villz isn't going to die to a terrible X5 pilot. The reason I posted it was just to show the movement capabilities of somebody who is piloting the correct way, and the imbalances that result.

Edited by Adiuvo, 11 December 2013 - 02:10 PM.

[stjobe]

Mr 144, on 11 December 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

Reducing the playability of assaults and heavies is not the solution...creating advantages or "roles" for lights and mediums is.

The problem is that the "role" of the medium is currently taken by the heavy, so to give it back to the medium it will have to be taken away from the heavy - if you call that "reducing the playability" of the heavy, then yes, that is the solution.

As for Assaults, well they are supposed to be slow, lumbering beasts, right? Sarna says this about them:

Quote

[Assault 'mechs] can project tremendous firepower, and perform best as the spearhead of frontal assaults or in defending entrenched positions. The trade-off is in speed and maneuverability, as assault 'Mechs are generally very slow. As such, they often require friendly units to protect them from being outmaneuvered.

Notice the two last sentences? "The trade-off is in speed and maneuverability" and "often require friendly units to protect them from being outmaneuvered".

What is it to be outmaneuvered? Well one aspect is to be geographically outmaneuvered, i.e. culled from the pack or left behind. But it seems one wouldn't need friendly units to "protect" one from that. Another aspect of being outmaneuvered is to not have the tracking speed to be able to track a fast target - this would indeed require friendly units to protect the Assault from; it cannot protect itself since it's too slow and cumbersome to do so.

What Artgathan is showing is that even a stock Atlas with its stock engine has the tracking capability to keep any 'mech in the game from outmaneuvering it (whether its pilot has the ability to utilize this capability is another thing, of course). This isn't really in keeping with the lore behind what Assaults should be, and more importantly it negates the mobility advantage that lighter 'mechs should have against these heavier 'mechs.

No, an Assault can't move as fast or turn as fast, or climb as steep hills as a Light - but it doesn't have to, because it's agile enough where it counts - in the ability to put its crosshairs on that Light. Which means that all that vaunted speed, mobility, and agility that is supposed to be the advantage the Light has over the Assault is for naught.

I don't know what turn speed or torso twist speed would be needed for a Light to at least mathematically be able to stay behind an Assault that tries to stop it from doing so; but I do think it would be worth a try to reduce the turn speed and torso twist speed on the heavier 'mechs to try to carve out a niche for the lighter 'mechs.

I've been playing this game now for a year and a half or so, and in my opinion the speeds of 'mechs are too high in general (i.e. 'mechs are too fast across all weight classes), the torso twist speed and tracking abilities are too high (contributing to the dearth of lights and mediums), and if I'm to point a finger to where the fault lies, it's with the pilot skills. We could start with removing those.

[Trauglodyte]

stjobe, on 11 December 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

I've been playing this game now for a year and a half or so, and in my opinion the speeds of 'mechs are too high in general (i.e. 'mechs are too fast across all weight classes), the torso twist speed and tracking abilities are too high (contributing to the dearth of lights and mediums), and if I'm to point a finger to where the fault lies, it's with the pilot skills. We could start with removing those.

I've been complaining about this forever. Instead of taking canon as being a means by which to run by while making adjustments, they tossed it out and came up with a flat calculation for everyone. Now, mechs that were built on speed and light armament and/or armor are going as fast as mechs that were meant as light "assault" mechs (see the Locust vs Jenner or even Cicada vs Jenner). And, maps are so damned small that, even if you have speed, the opposing Mediums and Heavies, which shouldn't even be CLOSE in speed, are able to chase you down (everyone is sporting XL engines, afterall) and corner you till you're dead. Finally, damage output is so damned high versus armor and speed capabilities that being fast or quick doesn't even matter.