347 replies to this topic

[Gas Guzzler]

stjobe, on 02 April 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

The Victor isn't supposed to be more mobile than the other assaults due to its speed, it's supposed to be more mobile than the other assaults due to its jump jets.

It's

• Faster than the Awesome, Stalker, Highlander, Atlas, and King Crab (all 3/5).
  
• Slower than the Charger (5/8).
  
• As fast as the Thug, Zeus, Cyclops, and Banshee (4/6).

And together with the Highlander, it's the only jump-capable assault 'mech in TRO:3025.


Either way, the problem isn't really with the Victor per se, the problem is the fact that torso twist speed is tightly coupled to engine size - probably a short-cut by a programmer way back when, which has had all kinds of problems during the years. This is only the latest incarnation.

Decouple torso twist speed from engine size and you could implement all kinds of interesting 'mech quirks,

But, it does make sense to have the engine size impact twist speed, given that the engine is what is powers the motor functions of the mech. Essentially what they have done with the +/- 5 or 10% twist speed is partially decoupled it because they can use that metric to change the speed.

[XX Sulla XX]

The maneuverability should be based on weight not an arbitrary class name. It should handle like an 80ton mech with a big engine (compared to larger and smaller mechs on each side of it.)

[Osric Lancaster]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 02 April 2014 - 02:42 PM, said:

Speed is life, ya go slow, ya die. In all seriousness the more speed you have the more room for finesse you have. If you can pop out of cover, shoot and get back into cover minimizing the amount of damage you take, versus soaking extra damage, you gain a lot more surviveability.

In other words your speed effects not only how hard you are to hit in the open, but how long you need to expose yourself to return fire. In the tabletop it was one of those, but not the other. In MWO it's both, and weapons do damage a lot faster when you're exposed, and the longer you're exposed the faster you get focused down. Speed is therefore disproportionately useful to the point where people get better durability by using XL engines.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 02 April 2014 - 03:16 PM.

[stjobe]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 02 April 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

Except stock speeds shouldn't matter when comparing mechs and how they are affected by custom engine sizes. We aren't arguing that the Victor should be more maneuverable as other assaults. We are arguing it should be as Maneuverable. With the current changes it is less maneuverable per ton than any other mech in the game.

And I'm arguing that custom engine sizes shouldn't affect torso twist speed. Movement speed, sure, but not twist speed.

For the record, I don't think the nerf was the right one; I do think a nerf of ALL heavies and assaults are needed - but I'm more than willing to take the same nerf for lights and mediums as well, as I think our 'mechs are all too fast and nimble in general.

Part of the problem is the tight coupling of engine size to twist speed, another large part is those damnable pilot skills that muck up any semblance of mobility balancing.

Gas Guzzler, on 02 April 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

But, it does make sense to have the engine size impact twist speed, given that the engine is what is powers the motor functions of the mech.

Sure, but it's not the engine that moves the torso, that's actuators and myomer bundles. So I disagree that engine size should have an impact on twist speed.

Gas Guzzler, on 02 April 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

Essentially what they have done with the +/- 5 or 10% twist speed is partially decoupled it because they can use that metric to change the speed.

No, they haven't decoupled it, they've made it slower than others. Those 20% affects any size engine, not just the bigger-than-stock ones.

[Gas Guzzler]

stjobe, on 02 April 2014 - 03:27 PM, said:

Sure, but it's not the engine that moves the torso, that's actuators and myomer bundles. So I disagree that engine size should have an impact on twist speed.

Well those actuators and myomer bundles are powered by the engine... honestly it could go either way trying to technically explain it, but I like the bonus you get to agility by throwing a huge engine in. I don't know though, I enjoy playing the game with all the mechs where they are at (with the exception of the Victor, just give it the HGN treatment of -5/10% and be done with it if its too agile). Not a big fan of change I guess.

[DeathlyEyes]

Ultimatum X, on 02 April 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

Would either of you be able to post up some data/numbers to support your opposing assertions?

see original edited post or here

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 01 April 2014 - 04:46 PM, said:

Finally here is a screenshot of a shadow hawk with current values and with a 310 engine just like the previous comparison. adding the original values back to the Victor results in a 58.8, turn rate 61.2 torso pitch speed, 109.2 torso yaw speed and arm speeds of 235.4 no where near the Shadowhawk

Edited by SLDF DeathlyEyes, 02 April 2014 - 03:49 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 02 April 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

By the way, it handles exactly the same as an Atlas, I attatched a screenshot proving this earlier in the thread.

EDIT: oops I didn't actually post them earlier here you guys go. Atlas and Victor with the same size engine:

Wow. Proof is in the pudding right there. That should NOT be the case.

[Mikros04]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 02 April 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

By the way, it handles exactly the same as an Atlas, I attatched a screenshot proving this earlier in the thread.

EDIT: oops I didn't actually post them earlier here you guys go. Atlas and Victor with the same size engine:

I guess the numbers don't lie, but they sure don't feel the same to me. Either way, I think we might both want the same thing here

[Gas Guzzler]

Yeah... well I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt this way. Every time I mention anything like this in game chat I get comments like "Spoken like a true poptart" which is quite the ignorant thing to say.

[Ancih]

those numbers speak for themselves... looks like that 20% was just not at all well thought out rational decision, it feels like "hey those victors sure feel a bit too agile, let's nerf them a bit... let try 20% and see how it goes.." and not at all proportional to "linear agility curve" of the rest of the assault class mechs. That's the problem.

[AC]

To be honest, all of this could be fixed by how PGI handles the mechs inertia.... right now there is none/little

Simple experiment... Stand still and turn circle. How fast can you turn? Now, sprint in a straight line and try and turn in just as tight of a circle. You can't. So why can mechs?

I never understood why increasing the engine size increased how sharp of a corner a mech can make. It makes absolutely no sense and is what helps drive the engine size wars we see now. A mechs turning ability should be fixed, and it should decrease the faster it runs. To make sharp corners, a mech should have to slow down...just like every other vehicle in existence.

Fix this one thing with the mechs handling and all of the 'tuning' would go away. There would be no need for it. Plus it would make mechs feel more massive. They would actually have some inertia when they are turning.

[DeathlyEyes]

AC, on 02 April 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

To be honest, all of this could be fixed by how PGI handles the mechs inertia.... right now there is none/little

Simple experiment... Stand still and turn circle. How fast can you turn? Now, sprint in a straight line and try and turn in just as tight of a circle. You can't. So why can mechs?

I never understood why increasing the engine size increased how sharp of a corner a mech can make. It makes absolutely no sense and is what helps drive the engine size wars we see now. A mechs turning ability should be fixed, and it should decrease the faster it runs. To make sharp corners, a mech should have to slow down...just like every other vehicle in existence.

Fix this one thing with the mechs handling and all of the 'tuning' would go away. There would be no need for it. Plus it would make mechs feel more massive. They would actually have some inertia when they are turning.

No, not even remotely close. There are reasons why there are cone drills at the NFL combine. Reasons why a guy who is fat versus a guy who is in shape can turn faster. The more power a Mech's engine outputs the more strength it's legs have. The more strength the tighter the turn radius. Besides mech's do scale depending on how fast they are going. Look at all the screenshots. Notice how the degrees per second for turning is on a graph? That's because it scales depending on how fast the mech is moving.

[AC]

I have a masters in mechanical engineering.... don't tell me "No, not remotely close".

What we have right now is the equivalent of saying, to make your car corner faster, you put in a bigger engine.... Which has NOTHING to do with cornering.

[Undecided]

AC, on 02 April 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

I never understood why increasing the engine size increased how sharp of a corner a mech can make.

It's a relic of the engine size mechanic in Battletech where movement points were expended both by forward and backward movement and by turning. An 80 ton Victor with six movement points was just as fast both straight lines and turning as a 50 ton Hunchback with six movement points. I do agree that it doesn't have anyplace in this game, I just want it applied consistently over a linear curve as opposed to by arbitrary thwacks of the nerf bat when a mech doesn't "feel right".

[XX Sulla XX]

Quote

It's a relic of the engine size mechanic in Battletech where movement points were expended both by forward and backward movement and by turning. An 80 ton Victor with six movement points was just as fast both straight lines and turning as a 50 ton Hunchback with six movement points. I do agree that it doesn't have anyplace in this game, I just want it applied consistently over a linear curve as opposed to by arbitrary thwacks of the nerf bat when a mech doesn't "feel right".

It does suggest like lore how the creaters thought the Victor was supposed to move though.

[DeathlyEyes]

AC, on 02 April 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

I have a masters in mechanical engineering.... don't tell me "No, not remotely close".

What we have right now is the equivalent of saying, to make your car corner faster, you put in a bigger engine.... Which has NOTHING to do with cornering.

But we aren't on wheels. We are on feet that are digging into the ground with each step. It's pretty different from a car. A bigger engine lets those feet get planted with more force.

[Gas Guzzler]

AC, on 02 April 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

I have a masters in mechanical engineering.... don't tell me "No, not remotely close".

What we have right now is the equivalent of saying, to make your car corner faster, you put in a bigger engine.... Which has NOTHING to do with cornering.

Respect for the degree, working on my Masters in Aerospace Engineering right now. While physically what you are saying is correct, how Mechs work is kind of an unknown. The engine in a mech could be described as the power plant that powers all the actuators and myomer muscles in the Mech, in which case a more powerful power plant could provide stronger legs for the mech to turn tighter. The car analogy doesn't apply given that an auto engine propels a car in a completely different manner. Obviously though, a Mech traveling faster should not turn as quickly as the same Mech traveling slowly or stationary.

Torso twist I would say follows the same rule. Bigger engine, more power to the actuator that twists the torso, more twist speed.

[Khobai]

Mechs turn by moving their legs. Bigger engine means legs move faster. Makes perfect sense to me.

[Ultimax]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 02 April 2014 - 03:40 PM, said:

see original edited post or here

Thanks for that.

If I owned enough mechs, I'd go through and create a spreadsheet to compare current/former turn-rates.

I'd really love to know what mechs in particular the devs felt the Victor was too maneuverable to in comparison - because according to your numbers it certainly was not the shadowhawk.

[Gas Guzzler]

Ultimatum X, on 02 April 2014 - 08:19 PM, said:

Thanks for that.

If I owned enough mechs, I'd go through and create a spreadsheet to compare current/former turn-rates.

I'd really love to know what mechs in particular the devs felt the Victor was too maneuverable to in comparison - because according to your numbers it certainly was not the shadowhawk.

I think its like the comparison of a Victor with a big XL engine (350-370) vs say a Centurion with the 215 it comes with or whatever. Not a good comparison but I think that is what they didn't like.