51 replies to this topic

[GreyGriffin]

As the title says, torso twist speed should be tied to 2 factors: what chassis you are piloting and how much heat you have. The current meta punishes mediums and lights under 120 kph enough, without also dragging down their torso twist speed. This also adds an additional element of skill to heat management, although energy weapons may need a modest decrease in heat gain.

This also allows 'mechs firing arcs and torso twist to be balanced independently of how fast their footspeed is.

[El Bandito]

Sticking to BT lore is something PGI abhors. So no luck getting heat affect twist/speed/targeting.

Remember that this is a simple shooter game with MW skin. And please buy the latest variants.

As arcady as MW4 was, at least it had good heat effects.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 April 2014 - 10:39 PM.

[no one]

If nothing else they should reduce the impact of engine size on torso twist speed. As part of my heat system proposal I worked out how to granularize heat penalties from TT into MWO. I made a nifty spread sheet!
[Lisa] I make a lot of spread sheets. [/Lisa]

https://docs.google....p=sharing#gid=0
http://mwomercs.com/...50#entry3218650

Edited by no one, 15 April 2014 - 10:39 PM.

[Eglar]

El Bandito, on 15 April 2014 - 10:36 PM, said:

Sticking to BT lore is something PGI abhors. So no luck getting heat affect twist/speed/targeting.

Remember that this is a simple shooter game with MW skin. And please buy the latest variants.

As arcady as MW4 was, at least it had good heat effects.

I'm sorry but do you realize that PGI (MWO) is the closest one to BT-lore when it comes to official Battletech PC games?

Edited by Eglar, 16 April 2014 - 02:19 AM.

[El Bandito]

Eglar, on 16 April 2014 - 02:18 AM, said:

I'm sorry but do you realize that PGI (MWO) is the closest one to BT-lore when it comes to official Battletech PC games?

Enlighten me then.

1. Mech models are more liberally interpreted than any of the previous MW games.

2. Weapon heat and range are vastly different.

3. GHOST HEAT.

4. GECM functioning as AECM.

5. Abnormal quirks and skill trees.

6. Heat has no side-effects on the mech except shutting it down or make it explode.


Need I go on?

Edited by El Bandito, 16 April 2014 - 04:37 AM.

[Eglar]

El Bandito, on 16 April 2014 - 02:24 AM, said:

Enlighten me then.

1. Mech models are more liberally interpreted than any of the previous MW games.

2. Weapon heat and range are vastly different.

3. GHOST HEAT.

4. GECM functioning as AECM.

5. Abnormal quirks and skill trees.

6. Heat has no side-effects on the mech except shutting it down.


Need I go on?

Does it change the fact that MWO is the closest PC game to BT lore or is it just convinient to play the BT/TT-Lore Card every time one needs it?

Don't get me wrong, I am a big Battletech Fan myself and I didn't like the way they made some of the mechs, especially the unseen Battlemaster but blaming PGI for not sticking to BT lore is simply not a valid argument in my books. Especially when it's about something like twist speed which is not clearly defined in the BT-Lore (correct me here, if I'm wrong). If you could explain your statement with valid reasons in regards of the game balance, that'd be a totally different story.

Edited by Eglar, 16 April 2014 - 02:46 AM.

[smokefield]

6. Heat has no side-effects on the mech except shutting it down. ????

i see you are an alite founder....how many games did you played so far ? cause if i am not mistaken you are pretty wrong on your statement.

[El Bandito]

smokefield, on 16 April 2014 - 02:34 AM, said:

6. Heat has no side-effects on the mech except shutting it down. ???? i see you are an alite founder....how many games did you played so far ? cause if i am not mistaken you are pretty wrong on your statement.

I was referring to other MW games where high heat actually affects aim, while in MWO, the only noticable heat effect difference is between 99% and 100%

[El Bandito]

Eglar, on 16 April 2014 - 02:32 AM, said:

Does it change the fact that MWO is the closest PC game to BT lore or is it just convinient to play the BT/TT-Lore Card every time one needs it? Don't get me wrong, I am a big Battletech Fan myself and I didn't like the way they made some of the mechs, especially the unseen Battlemaster but blaming PGI for not sticking to BT lore is simply not a valid argument in my books. Especially when it's about something like twist speed which is not clearly defined in the BT-Lore (correct me here, if I'm wrong). If you could explain your statement with valid reasons in regards of the game balance, that'd be a totally different story.

How is MWO the closest to the lore? Explain to me that. At least other MW games make you feel like you are part of the BT universe, be it the Refusal War between Clan Wolf and Clan Jade Falcon, Operation Bulldog, or Fed-Com Civil War. Here, we used to have some Inner Sphere news...and that's it. Currently it is just a glorified arena shooter with mech skin.

If you want me to explain my statement in regards to balance, then just look at their WTFBBQ ECM implementation and the subsequent ham handed approach to its "counters", which blew everything the lore stated. ECM and NARC/BAP now have the exact opposite relationship from lore. If that is not messed up, I do not know what is.

Don't even mention the Ghost Heat. There were dozens of better ideas curb insta pin point high damage alphas and to make this game feel more BT at the same time. Methods such as cone of fire, convergence, power limitation etc... But no, we must have some arbitrary heat penalty for arbitrary number of weapons fired, which is doing more harm than good.

Edited by El Bandito, 16 April 2014 - 03:01 AM.

[Asmudius Heng]

I have been saying this since closed beta - the additional agility that angines grant is too much.

They keep faffing around saying assaults do not feel like assaults and lumbering etc but everyong crams in as big an engine as they can manage not only for the speed but mostly for the agility on the heavier mechs.

I do not mind a small increase to turning and twisting for engine size but what we have makes too big a difference

Engine choice should be a serious risk vs reward and right now the reward of a bigger engine is worth the additional risk of tonnage in most cases.

Also, if engine size plays less of a role in agility then each chassis inbuilt agility will come to the fore more ... a mech that might seem lackluster in other ways could have a twist speed etc that is far beyond that of its peers and no enginer swappage can change that.

Scale back what engines do for agility by 50-75% i say and then review agility for all mechs as a balancing and differentiation measure.

[Joseph Mallan]

I could understand the Stalker rotation restriction even if it was BS... But the Battlemaster? Really PGI??? Really?

[Eglar]

El Bandito, on 16 April 2014 - 03:00 AM, said:

How is MWO the closest to the lore? Explain to me that.

Compared to other Mech Games?

Starting with the mechlab:
Hardpoints,
Critical Slots
Pre-reserved Slots such as XL-Engine and Hand Actuators
genral mechbuilding rules are not as accurate but closer than ANY other Mechwarrior game (no gyro included for instance)

Going To Timeline (3050):
Available Mechchassis,
Available Variants
Available weapons.
TRO 3050 though not as accurate, more accurate than any other Mechgame.

The background story is lacking with no CW yet. But even with Community Warfare, do you expect the story to go according to Stackpole and Davion-Fans in a MMO Game?

El Bandito, on 16 April 2014 - 03:00 AM, said:

If you want me to explain my statement in regards to balance, then just look at their WTFBBQ ECM implementation and the subsequent ham handed approach to its "counters", which blew everything the lore stated. ECM and NARC/BAP now have the exact opposite relationship from lore. If that is not messed up, I do not know what is.

I can't see how this explains how torso-twist speed should be based on mech-chassis.

Edited by Eglar, 16 April 2014 - 03:31 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Eglar, on 16 April 2014 - 03:28 AM, said:

Compared to other Mech Games?

Starting with the mechlab:
Hardpoints,
Critical Slots
Pre-reserved Slots such as XL-Engine and Hand Actuators
genral mechbuilding rules are not as accurate but closer than ANY other Mechwarrior game (no gyro included for instance)

Going To Timeline (3050):
Mechchassis and Variants
Available weapons.
TRO 3050 though not as accurate, more accurate than any other Mechgame.

The background story is lacking with no CW yet. But even with Community Warfare, do you expect the story to go according to Stackpole and Davion-Fans in a MMO Game?


I can't see how this explains how torso-twist speed should be based on mech-chassis.

According to Lore, if you are rich enough you can put Clan Tech on a Mech by yourself, in a Dropship's Mechbay while in route to your next Mission.

As to the story. I expect the forces from Canon to meet on the worlds they they are written. They Clash, winner writes the history for MW:O on that world.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 16 April 2014 - 03:33 AM.

[Eglar]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 April 2014 - 03:32 AM, said:

According to Lore, if you are rich enough you can put Clan Tech on a Mech by yourself, in a Dropship's Mechbay while in route to your next Mission.

Heh, that's the thing I'm really interested in and how they are going to find a compromise between canon and balance on clan-tech. Like according to canon clan mech XL engines only take up 2 critical slots on the side-torsos and you need to destroy 3 slots on an XL engine to destroy a mech. so basically you can lose a side-torso and still go on. Hence, there's absolutely no reason to stick with STD engines on clan mechs if not for space (4 critical slots is not really alot)...well stuff like that. This is actually something where I personally would like to see setbacks on clan-equipment in favor better gameplay-balance.

I feel that eventually around 3060 the balance between clans and IS will be better but that's a long way to go and that they eventually will make it possible for IS-mechs to mount clan-weapons.

Joseph Mallan, on 16 April 2014 - 03:32 AM, said:

As to the story. I expect the forces from Canon to meet on the worlds they they are written. They Clash, winner writes the history for MW:O on that world.

yes, same here. People who expect that CW will go like canon should either swap to Davions and "try" or play a single-player Mechwarrior game.

[Joseph Mallan]

The XL issue has been debated since Clan XL was introduced... There is a 20 year head start on it and to date there has been no change. Just sayin'... don't hold your breath.

For the record, I'm in the don't give a sit camp. I have been for a very long time. Whether I was IS or Clan Star Adder. I just killed you all the same.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 16 April 2014 - 04:14 AM.

[El Bandito]

Eglar, on 16 April 2014 - 03:28 AM, said:

Compared to other Mech Games? Starting with the mechlab: Hardpoints, Critical Slots Pre-reserved Slots such as XL-Engine and Hand Actuators genral mechbuilding rules are not as accurate but closer than ANY other Mechwarrior game (no gyro included for instance) Going To Timeline (3050): Available Mechchassis, Available Variants Available weapons. TRO 3050 though not as accurate, more accurate than any other Mechgame. The background story is lacking with no CW yet. But even with Community Warfare, do you expect the story to go according to Stackpole and Davion-Fans in a MMO Game? I can't see how this explains how torso-twist speed should be based on mech-chassis.

I heavily disagree. MW4-esque different sized hard points would be more fitting to the lore. Mech chassis selection are not significantly greater than MW4 and less than MW2, for example. In fact MWO is lacking certain mechs when compared to some other MW games due to only releasing mechs with at least 3 variants. Hence common IS mechs such as Flashman or Bombardier are not here.

Variants are good addition but weapons are malfed up in some respects. Especially the Ballistic 3x range is creating some pretty silly balance issues, which PGI tried to address recently in a haphazard fashion. Ideally the game should have kept the default BT range as max range[/b], so we wouldn't have had to sit through boring snipe meta for over a bloody year and actually brawl.

And don't bet anything on CW yet--especially with the pace PGI is moving forward. I am sick and tired of people calling CW the be all and end all, answer to life love and everything in MWO. I'll believe it when I see it, not before.

Edited by El Bandito, 16 April 2014 - 04:32 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

El Bandito, on 16 April 2014 - 04:22 AM, said:

I heavily disagree. MW4-esque different sized hard points would be more fitting to the lore. Mech chassis selection are not significantly greater than MW4 and less than MW2, for example. In fact MWO is lacking certain mechs when compared to some other MW games due to only releasing mechs with at least 3 variants. Hence common IS mechs such as Flashman or Bombardier are not here.

Variants are good addition but weapons are malfed up in some respects. Especially the Ballistic 3x range is creating some pretty silly balance issues.

And don't bet anything on CW yet--especially with the pace PGI is moving forward. I am sick and tired of people calling CW the be all and end all, answer to life love the universe and everything in MWO. I'll believe it when I see it, not before.

Fixed that for you. And the answer is 42.

[El Bandito]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 April 2014 - 04:25 AM, said:

Fixed that for you. And the answer is 42.

Yes, the answer is 42. However, some people thinks it is CW, and I find it funny. The rapture is 2 years overdue.

Edited by El Bandito, 16 April 2014 - 04:28 AM.

[Prezimonto]

Asmudius Heng, on 16 April 2014 - 03:11 AM, said:

I have been saying this since closed beta - the additional agility that angines grant is too much.

They keep faffing around saying assaults do not feel like assaults and lumbering etc but everyong crams in as big an engine as they can manage not only for the speed but mostly for the agility on the heavier mechs.

I do not mind a small increase to turning and twisting for engine size but what we have makes too big a difference

Engine choice should be a serious risk vs reward and right now the reward of a bigger engine is worth the additional risk of tonnage in most cases.

Also, if engine size plays less of a role in agility then each chassis inbuilt agility will come to the fore more ... a mech that might seem lackluster in other ways could have a twist speed etc that is far beyond that of its peers and no enginer swappage can change that.

Scale back what engines do for agility by 50-75% i say and then review agility for all mechs as a balancing and differentiation measure.

The real problem is that we have essentially FREE in builds XL engines. It costs nothing to more engines around, and it costs nothing to repair them.

REALLY big standard engines are so heavy most builds have to deal with a lot less weaponry to fit them in. XL engines lets you push your engine rating really high while keeping or improving your weapon loadout.

Now add the rest of the upgrades as well.

There's a reason mechs die too fast, and a reason we have severe weapon balance problems.

Most of our AC's/PPCs are in an okay place at the moment, it's when you double up, triple up, and pair them into large alpha's there's a problem.

At the OP... I don't mind if engine size affects torso twist speeds, but the real culprit is XL engines. I don't think anyone really thinks the Stalker or most Atlases cruise and more too fast, but neither mech does very well with XL engines.

I suggested a partial solution in the second link in my signature. Essentially, standard equipment should give mechs boosts to internal equipment, and the more effective the upgrade is, the larger the internal HP boost should be. Players would then have to choose more carefully, offensive power, or defensive power.

Edited by Prezimonto, 16 April 2014 - 04:57 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

El Bandito, on 16 April 2014 - 04:27 AM, said:

Yes, the answer is 42. However, some people thinks it is CW, and I find it funny. The rapture is 2 years overdue.

That is par for the course!