32 replies to this topic

[Artgathan]

Previously, in a different thread (found here: http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1) I discussed how engine sizes interact with mech mobility, and how Assault mechs are impossible to out-maneuver at any range greater than 25m. I'd like to revisit the topic of mech mobility, but from a new standpoint.

Fair Warning: this argument uses a reference to the Table-Top Method of Battlemech Operation. I will make the argument that MW:O Mechs do not behave as TT Mechs, and this causes at least some balance issues.

That said, in TT all mechs use a pool of movement points for actual movement (IE: going forward and backward) and positioning (IE: turning). This means that on any given turn you can either:

• Move your full speed forward in a straight line
  
• Execute a turn and move less than your full speed

This has serious implications for a mech's mobility on the field. For instance, given two stock mechs (an Atlas and a Jenner) that want to execute a 60 degree turn (1 MP) the following will happen:

• The Atlas sacrifices 33% of its walking mobility to execute the turn (it has 3 MP, and requires 1 to execute the turn), or 20% of its run mobility (5 MP - 1 to execute the turn). This means that the Atlas will have a top speed of ~21.6 kph (walking) or ~43.2 kph (running).
  
• The Jenner sacrifices ~14% (walking) or ~9% (running) of it's mobility to execute the turn, meaning it's top speed will be 64.8 kph (walking) or 108 kph (running).

What does this example show? Simply that executing a turn is much more costly for slower mechs, as they must sacrifice a large proportion of their top speed to do so. In MW:O this is not the case, as every mech can move at its top speed all the time, even while executing turns.

What does this have to do with MW:O? Quite simply, the slower mechs (typically Heavy/Assault mechs) have been given a huge buff in terms of mobility, which allows them to track smaller targets with more ease. Because they (they meaning slow mechs) are not forced to choose between charging forwards or turning to track a target, they're not as vulnerable at short ranges as they were in TT. It allows them to keep up with faster mechs more than they should be able to.

How can we fix this? Simply make a mech's turn speed a function of its current speed (with its current speed being a percentage of its top speed). Want to make a fast turn? Time to pump the brakes.

What would implementing this do to MW:O? It would give mobility back to the fast mechs, as they'd be able to execute reasonably fast turns while still retaining a high forward velocity. It would also mean that slow mechs are more vulnerable at shorter ranges (where they would be forced to choose between moving and manuvering).

[Vassago Rain]

>if the atlas spends 40 tons on an engine, my jenner should still be able to out turn him!

[Artgathan]

Vassago Rain, on 24 July 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

>if the atlas spends 40 tons on an engine, my jenner should still be able to out turn him!

If the Jenner has spent a proportionate amount on an engine, yes. The Atlas gets the armor and firepower, the Jenner should have at least the mobility. That's balance.

Right now if both mechs spend 40% of their mass on an Engine, the Jenner:

• Runs at 101.8 kph
  
• Turns at 72.07 degrees / second
  
• Requires 2 additional heat sinks
  
• STD 220

Meanwhile the Atlas:

• Runs at 58.3 kph
  
• Turns at 41.27 degrees/second
  
• Requires 0 additional heat sinks
  
• STD 360

If we put them both at a STD 300:

Jenner:

• Spends 71% of its weight
  
• Runs at 113.4 kph
  
• Turns at 98.27 degrees/second

Atlas

• Spends 25% of its weight
  
• Runs at 48.6 kph
  
• Turns at 34.39 degrees/second

Light mechs were built to out-maneuver. In the current state of the game, they can't.

[Vassago Rain]

You're gonna be using an XL in a jenner, not a standard.

[Artgathan]

For the sake of comparison the type of engine must be held constant.

Assaults are too mobile. Even with a stock 300 engine, an Atlas can track a locust with a 190XL at any range greater than 25 meters. How is that fair?

[Angel of Annihilation]

Here is the thing. Many TT rules don't fit the game for multiple different reasons. For example being able to fire your weapons only once every 10 seconds wouldn't be a hell of alot of fun.

Same goes for mobility. Light mechs in the table top game are designed primarily for recon and raiding supply depots, destroying convoys, etc. They are not supposed to be going anywhere near enemy Assault mechs because with TT damage values and armor values, a single AC/20 shot would utterly destroy a light mech. That is obviously not fun so that is why there is a difference.

[Vassago Rain]

Artgathan, on 24 July 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

For the sake of comparison the type of engine must be held constant.

Assaults are too mobile. Even with a stock 300 engine, an Atlas can track a locust with a 190XL at any range greater than 25 meters. How is that fair?

For the sake of comparison, we will be approaching things from a realistic perspective. That is, no assault runs a small (for them) engine, and there are no lights who would willingly use a standard engine.

If you're gonna take my mobility away, despite me using a massive 350 engine in my atlas, then how about I regain the ability to one-shot your lights?

[Artgathan]

Vassago Rain, on 24 July 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

For the sake of comparison, we will be approaching things from a realistic perspective. That is, no assault runs a small (for them) engine, and there are no lights who would willingly use a standard engine.

If you're gonna take my mobility away, despite me using a massive 350 engine in my atlas, then how about I regain the ability to one-shot your lights?

The only fully-armored lights that could be one-shot with an AC/20 in TT were Locusts, or <30 tonners with XLs. Stop making inane comparisons.

Additionally that "massive" 350 engine only costs 36.5% of the Atlas' wieght, while the XL190 Locust dedicates 45% of it's mass to the Engine + 3 HS. A Jenner with an XL 300 has spent 42.3% of it's mass on an engine which has decreased it's durability by virtue of being an XL engine, and it still can't outmaneuver the Atlas which spent less on it's engine.

[Lefty Lucy]

In TT an Atlas can also shoot directly behind it with either arm, and with torso twisting achieve a 300 degree arc of response every turn. Assaults not being able to track lights with their weapons isn't really a thing that should happen, and doesn't really represent TT battletech any better.

[Adiuvo]

Vassago Rain, on 24 July 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

For the sake of comparison, we will be approaching things from a realistic perspective. That is, no assault runs a small (for them) engine, and there are no lights who would willingly use a standard engine.

If you're gonna take my mobility away, despite me using a massive 350 engine in my atlas, then how about I regain the ability to one-shot your lights?

Land your SRMs and your AC20, and you can.

Even if a light can entirely outturn you there are still various options you can take to prevent yourself from chipped with no retaliation. Mainly, putting your back to a wall.

Furthermore, if you let an enemy light get that close and you have no team support, you should be dying anyways. You were outpositioned.

[3rdworld]

Artgathan, on 24 July 2014 - 12:40 PM, said:

The only fully-armored lights that could be one-shot with an AC/20 in TT were Locusts, or <30 tonners with XLs. Stop making inane comparisons.

In TT a head hit from a AC/20 kills anything.

[Koniving]

Viktor Drake, on 24 July 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

Here is the thing. Many TT rules don't fit the game for multiple different reasons. For example being able to fire your weapons only once every 10 seconds wouldn't be a hell of alot of fun.

Same goes for mobility. Light mechs in the table top game are designed primarily for recon and raiding supply depots, destroying convoys, etc. They are not supposed to be going anywhere near enemy Assault mechs because with TT damage values and armor values, a single AC/20 shot would utterly destroy a light mech. That is obviously not fun so that is why there is a difference.

There are actually tabletop light mechs designed for brawling.
Case in point is the Raven 4X that by canon in the books, the manuals, and on Sarna, is a light mech built for brawling. The Raven 2X is meant as a hybrid.

There are 55 ton mechs built to recon. Interestingly enough the Shadowhawk is one of them. Meanwhile the Wolverine was built for brawling.

The Jagermech was built as fire support and anti-air. The Catapult as armored fire support. The Thunderbolt was built as an all-round tanker.

The Dragon 1C was built as a brawler; all Dragons are classified as brawling mechs. The Dragon 1C has more tonnage in armor than the heaviest armored Stalker -- even though the actual points in armor is dentical.

The Charger is an 80 ton assault mech built for recon.

There are mechs built for all the roles in all categories. An Urban Mech is another example of a brawling light.

The problem is MWO allows you to pull off a lot of pure bullshit.

[1453 R]

So what you're saying is that assault 'Mechs should all move like legged Dire Whales and light 'Mechs need to be completely impervious to anything but the attentions of another light 'Mech.

I'm primarily a 40-60-ton range player who prefers mobility to bigger hammers and even I think that's kind of whacked. If the assault 'Mech never gets to bring any of its firepower to bear on a target because it needs to hit a dead stop if it wants to turn faster than the Death Star, the heck is the point of having all that firepower in the first place?

[Koniving]

Lefty Lucy, on 24 July 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

In TT an Atlas can also shoot directly behind it with either arm, and with torso twisting achieve a 300 degree arc of response every turn. Assaults not being able to track lights with their weapons isn't really a thing that should happen, and doesn't really represent TT battletech any better.

Atlases could not do that actually. They had rear firing weapons specifically because they could not do that. Their maximum arc from the torso arms was 180 degrees (90 left, 90 right) with 45 degrees left/right for twist. That's a 270 degree arc, not 300. Though it is close.

Keep in mind that in tabletop, there was 10 seconds to do this in. And the lights were typically 81 to 129 kph. The 129 kph lights were much too fast.


This Atlas complained because he could not twist far enough to hit my tank (and his rear weapons were removed in favor of more dakka).

------------

For an idea of how an Atlas was supposed to move, take a Dire Wolf with no unlocks. That's how they are supposed to move and how they would if you bought one new without unlocks.

Then again, a Jenner would be 118 kph. A Cicada would be 129. A Locust would be 129. All 3 would have identical armor. But of the three, the Jenner would have the best firepower and jumpjets.

Edited by Koniving, 24 July 2014 - 01:27 PM.

[BARBAR0SSA]

More maps will rolling hills and cover that light mechs can take advantage of would be great. Eg side of caustic with the rock formation and that hill, just do a large openish map like that.

Not every friggin map needs to have all these crazy high and low points! Literally if alpine didn't have massive mountains to climb and was just a bunch of low hills, I'd probably love it, conquest on there is quite fun when you're forced to play in the lower area and I've seen/played lights making a huge difference there running around finding targets .

Build maps with small openings that only smaller mechs can fit through, I'd love to see a locust only sized hole in some maps. Really play to the advantages of some of the small guys. Conquest add a cap point that the lights can get to very easily via underground network where they will end up fighting other lights on a map off the start yada yada.

[Lefty Lucy]

Koniving, on 24 July 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

Atlases could not do that actually. They had rear firing weapons specifically because they could not do that. Their maximum arc from the torso arms was 180 degrees (90 left, 90 right) with 45 degrees left/right for twist. That's a 270 degree arc, not 300. Though it is close.

Keep in mind that in tabletop, there was 10 seconds to do this in. And the lights were typically 81 to 129 kph. The 129 kph lights were much too fast.


This Atlas complained because he could not twist far enough to hit my tank (and his rear weapons were removed in favor of more dakka).

------------

For an idea of how an Atlas was supposed to move, take a Dire Wolf with no unlocks. That's how they are supposed to move and how they would if you bought one new without unlocks.

Then again, a Jenner would be 118 kph. A Cicada would be 129. A Locust would be 129. All 3 would have identical armor. But of the three, the Jenner would have the best firepower and jumpjets.

You are incorrect. All weapons on a mech may fire into the three hex sides in front of it (180 degrees) and each arm may fire one additional hex on its side. Therefore if a mech torso twists, then all the firing archs are shifted one further hex to either side, and any weapons mounted on the arm on the same side as the twist direction may fire directly behind the mech.

In that picture the atlas would be able to fire at the tank with any weapons mounted on its right arm, assuming it torso-twisted right to do so.

Get past intro-tech stuff and you'll find that there are plenty of mechs that move faster than a locust. Many BT mechs are designed poorly for "flavor" but the introtech mechs are especially bad.

Edited by Lefty Lucy, 24 July 2014 - 01:41 PM.

[stjobe]

Viktor Drake, on 24 July 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

Here is the thing. Many TT rules don't fit the game for multiple different reasons. For example being able to fire your weapons only once every 10 seconds wouldn't be a hell of alot of fun.

That depends, really. Most people when they use that argument relies on the reader thinking "shoot once, then wait 10 seconds" - but it might just as well be thought of as being "every weapon has an individual 10-second internal cooldown, so if I have five weapons I can fire one every other second".

Which would mean you'd fire more often than now, but with less weapons at a time.

I think everyone can understand what this would mean for TTK. Battles would be less "alpha all the tiem!" and more maneuvering to keep your fire on target.

Personally, I'd love to try it.

Viktor Drake, on 24 July 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

Same goes for mobility. Light mechs in the table top game are designed primarily for recon and raiding supply depots, destroying convoys, etc. They are not supposed to be going anywhere near enemy Assault mechs because with TT damage values and armor values, a single AC/20 shot would utterly destroy a light mech. That is obviously not fun so that is why there is a difference.

1v1 a TT light had a good chance of beating an assault. Lose initiative, you run as many hexes as you can, preferably behind cover. Win initiative and you get to move after the assault. Place yourself directly behind it, so the most he can hit you with is one of his arms or any rear-mounted weaponry. If you've played smart his chances to hit will be extremely low to non-existent, and you'll kill him with a thousand paper cuts.

Edited by stjobe, 24 July 2014 - 01:51 PM.

[elismallz]

Artgathan, on 24 July 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

Previously, in a different thread (found here: http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1) I discussed how engine sizes interact with mech mobility, and how Assault mechs are impossible to out-maneuver at any range greater than 25m. I'd like to revisit the topic of mech mobility, but from a new standpoint.

Fair Warning: this argument uses a reference to the Table-Top Method of Battlemech Operation. I will make the argument that MW:O Mechs do not behave as TT Mechs, and this causes at least some balance issues.

That said, in TT all mechs use a pool of movement points for actual movement (IE: going forward and backward) and positioning (IE: turning). This means that on any given turn you can either:

• Move your full speed forward in a straight line
  
• Execute a turn and move less than your full speed

This has serious implications for a mech's mobility on the field. For instance, given two stock mechs (an Atlas and a Jenner) that want to execute a 60 degree turn (1 MP) the following will happen:

• The Atlas sacrifices 33% of its walking mobility to execute the turn (it has 3 MP, and requires 1 to execute the turn), or 20% of its run mobility (5 MP - 1 to execute the turn). This means that the Atlas will have a top speed of ~21.6 kph (walking) or ~43.2 kph (running).
  
• The Jenner sacrifices ~14% (walking) or ~9% (running) of it's mobility to execute the turn, meaning it's top speed will be 64.8 kph (walking) or 108 kph (running).

What does this example show? Simply that executing a turn is much more costly for slower mechs, as they must sacrifice a large proportion of their top speed to do so. In MW:O this is not the case, as every mech can move at its top speed all the time, even while executing turns.


What does this have to do with MW:O? Quite simply, the slower mechs (typically Heavy/Assault mechs) have been given a huge buff in terms of mobility, which allows them to track smaller targets with more ease. Because they (they meaning slow mechs) are not forced to choose between charging forwards or turning to track a target, they're not as vulnerable at short ranges as they were in TT. It allows them to keep up with faster mechs more than they should be able to.

How can we fix this? Simply make a mech's turn speed a function of its current speed (with its current speed being a percentage of its top speed). Want to make a fast turn? Time to pump the brakes.

What would implementing this do to MW:O? It would give mobility back to the fast mechs, as they'd be able to execute reasonably fast turns while still retaining a high forward velocity. It would also mean that slow mechs are more vulnerable at shorter ranges (where they would be forced to choose between moving and manuvering).

I think we could see this as a mutual buff, weighted more toward lights. In a Jenner or Firestarter with max engine I can run a full 2 cirlces around a baddie in under 10 seconds (the supposed turn to second time conversion). In TT, assuming I was starting the turn facing the proper direction, it would take me 10 MPs (out of the Jenner's 11) to do a full circle and end up where I started. The theory crafting math is admirable but doesn't apply in MW:O world IMO.

Ultimately I think this change would take away mobility from lights, as we won't be able to juke while running away full speed from that lance of heavies we accidentally stumbled upon.

[Gyrok]

Artgathan, on 24 July 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

Previously, in a different thread (found here: http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1) I discussed how engine sizes interact with mech mobility, and how Assault mechs are impossible to out-maneuver at any range greater than 25m. I'd like to revisit the topic of mech mobility, but from a new standpoint.

Fair Warning: this argument uses a reference to the Table-Top Method of Battlemech Operation. I will make the argument that MW:O Mechs do not behave as TT Mechs, and this causes at least some balance issues.

That said, in TT all mechs use a pool of movement points for actual movement (IE: going forward and backward) and positioning (IE: turning). This means that on any given turn you can either:

• Move your full speed forward in a straight line
  
• Execute a turn and move less than your full speed

This has serious implications for a mech's mobility on the field. For instance, given two stock mechs (an Atlas and a Jenner) that want to execute a 60 degree turn (1 MP) the following will happen:

• The Atlas sacrifices 33% of its walking mobility to execute the turn (it has 3 MP, and requires 1 to execute the turn), or 20% of its run mobility (5 MP - 1 to execute the turn). This means that the Atlas will have a top speed of ~21.6 kph (walking) or ~43.2 kph (running).
  
• The Jenner sacrifices ~14% (walking) or ~9% (running) of it's mobility to execute the turn, meaning it's top speed will be 64.8 kph (walking) or 108 kph (running).

What does this example show? Simply that executing a turn is much more costly for slower mechs, as they must sacrifice a large proportion of their top speed to do so. In MW:O this is not the case, as every mech can move at its top speed all the time, even while executing turns.



What does this have to do with MW:O? Quite simply, the slower mechs (typically Heavy/Assault mechs) have been given a huge buff in terms of mobility, which allows them to track smaller targets with more ease. Because they (they meaning slow mechs) are not forced to choose between charging forwards or turning to track a target, they're not as vulnerable at short ranges as they were in TT. It allows them to keep up with faster mechs more than they should be able to.

How can we fix this? Simply make a mech's turn speed a function of its current speed (with its current speed being a percentage of its top speed). Want to make a fast turn? Time to pump the brakes.

What would implementing this do to MW:O? It would give mobility back to the fast mechs, as they'd be able to execute reasonably fast turns while still retaining a high forward velocity. It would also mean that slow mechs are more vulnerable at shorter ranges (where they would be forced to choose between moving and manuvering).

Ok, make the AC20 kill the Jenner in 1 shot, to any torso, just like TT and you got it...no problem.

Edited by Gyrok, 24 July 2014 - 01:58 PM.

[Clit Beastwood]

Artgathan, on 24 July 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

For the sake of comparison the type of engine must be held constant.

Assaults are too mobile. Even with a stock 300 engine, an Atlas can track a locust with a 190XL at any range greater than 25 meters. How is that fair?

A light mech's speed is in it's strength, so it makes sense to capitalize on that as much as possible... by making it as fast as possible. I've built slower lights (urbiespider - much love!) but as a joke. Turn based mechanics don't translate well to a real-time game - when I fire a weapon, it goes where I aim, not a random location decided by a dice. When I take missiles, I can turn to roll the damage, not wait to see what fate decides that barrage did to me. If MWO rigidly adhered to TT everything, nobody would play it except a small core of TT nerds. (I use "nerd" reverently, not as an insult). You might be happier with MW:Tactics, perhaps? This is a skill-based game, but I see a lot of posts where people recommend introducing TT mechanics to remove skill (aim, rolling damage, maneuvering, intelligent positioning, using visual cover). That sounds like a game killer... turning mwo into a game of chance... no thank you.