124 replies to this topic

[Dawnstealer]

Why is a Kodiak slower than a Locust? WHY? The Kodiak has longer legs.

...also it should be able to carry nukes.

...and a Naval Autocannon.

...and a pony.

[Wintersdark]

Widowmaker1981, on 25 May 2016 - 01:22 AM, said:

And people suggesting decoupling engine size from agility (with the reason that assaults and heavies are 'far too agile') want lights, piloted with a modicum of skill, to be auto win versus assaults, since you cannot possibly beat something that can permanently stay in your rear arc because you're so sluggish.

Again, bisaed argument is pointless. Youll never convince me, because im biased, and ill never convince you, because you're biased.

There's bias, and there's bias.

The stated design goal is for mechs to be roughly equal. Whether it should be or not doesn't matter, that's how it's supposed to be in MWO.

Thus, bias in that direction isn't a problem, because if anything all suggestions should by default be to improve the game along design guidelines. This, because when you leave that part out, there's no longer even a qualification for what "improve" means.

And, believe it or not, many of us are perfectly willing to say "Hey, I was wrong, your approach is better". That's part of discussing things, as opposed to hitting each other over the head with words.

And for the record, I'm a strong proponent of decoupling engine size from agility for everyone. It's stupid that agility is tied to speed, not because lights should autowin vs assaults but because a mechs twist rate should be wholly a factor of that mech, not the mechs ground speed. Thus, you could have a Light mech without a huge engine that remains agile. That makes engine size a more meaningful choice. A Urbanmech at Atlas speed should move Atlas speed, but not twist at Atlas speed.

[Murphy7]

Quote

Oh and get stuck on every pebble.

Here is the crux - pebbles need to be nerfed into oblivion.

Hundred ton mechs should not be stopped by pebbles - I would accept as a compromise the sound effect from Monty Python's Flying Circus intro as an assault steps on a pebble.

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 25 May 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

There's bias, and there's bias.

The stated design goal is for mechs to be roughly equal. Whether it should be or not doesn't matter, that's how it's supposed to be in MWO.

Thus, bias in that direction isn't a problem, because if anything all suggestions should by default be to improve the game along design guidelines. This, because when you leave that part out, there's no longer even a qualification for what "improve" means.

And, believe it or not, many of us are perfectly willing to say "Hey, I was wrong, your approach is better". That's part of discussing things, as opposed to hitting each other over the head with words.

And for the record, I'm a strong proponent of decoupling engine size from agility for everyone. It's stupid that agility is tied to speed, not because lights should autowin vs assaults but because a mechs twist rate should be wholly a factor of that mech, not the mechs ground speed. Thus, you could have a Light mech without a huge engine that remains agile. That makes engine size a more meaningful choice. A Urbanmech at Atlas speed should move Atlas speed, but not twist at Atlas speed.

would also have been a good balancer for the TBR and SCR.... super fast inline speed and great offensive punch, but lower overall agility/twist rate.

Which I tried to point out at the time, but of course the community, and Paul, decided to go and screw every other aspect of the mech in the quest for balance, instead.

Just like when it came time to stop Poptarting.

SMH.

Decoupling engine size from agility is no "autowin" for anyone.

One's agility could then be decided by the intended role of each mech. A Mech like the Archer, meant to hang back and toss LRMs would not likely possess the same agility as a Grasshopper or Warhammer, both mechs meant to be in your face mechs.

Some of the fastest Lights would probably be less agile than some slower lights, designed more to rely on their punch to survive (why should a Jenner be automatically better in all these aspects than a Wolfhound, or Panther, for instance?)

The downside? It would involve trusting PGI to juggle more (simple) matters. So far, when it comes to balancing, they still have not proven capable of juggling what they have. There are times I would really like to usurp a few of their production meetings to implement some common sense changes in the game and watch the blank looks on some of their faces when things actually work.

Murphy7, on 25 May 2016 - 07:24 AM, said:

Here is the crux - pebbles need to be nerfed into oblivion.

Hundred ton mechs should not be stopped by pebbles - I would accept as a compromise the sound effect from Monty Python's Flying Circus intro as an assault steps on a pebble.

or on pedestrian barricades.

Stupid we can't destroy/move through buildings.

[Gas Guzzler]

"A Victor should not be twisting like a 50 ton Centurion. It should twist like it is 80 tons."

-Russ Bullock, 2013

The context is when they giganerfed Victor agility because everyone in their XL350 Victors were more agile than the STD stock engine Centurion that was for some reason used as a baseline.


On topic, I think the KDK3 could stand to lose its agility quirks, it's high mounts and damage potential make it a bit unnecessary to me. I don't really care either way, but I don't think the Spirit Bear needs nerfs, and I think the 1 and 5 could use the same quirks as the rest.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gas Guzzler, on 25 May 2016 - 07:52 AM, said:

On topic, I think the KDK3 could stand to lose its agility quirks

Considering the QQ from other pilots on reddit, I guess I would be willing to try out the KDK-3 losing all quirks, so long as the 1 and 5 get them in return. Granted I still don't think the quad 10 build is really the most dangerous build for comp, but then again we won't have a good test of that for a while.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 25 May 2016 - 08:06 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Wintersdark, on 25 May 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

There's bias, and there's bias.

The stated design goal is for mechs to be roughly equal. Whether it should be or not doesn't matter, that's how it's supposed to be in MWO.

Thus, bias in that direction isn't a problem, because if anything all suggestions should by default be to improve the game along design guidelines. This, because when you leave that part out, there's no longer even a qualification for what "improve" means.

And, believe it or not, many of us are perfectly willing to say "Hey, I was wrong, your approach is better". That's part of discussing things, as opposed to hitting each other over the head with words.

And for the record, I'm a strong proponent of decoupling engine size from agility for everyone. It's stupid that agility is tied to speed, not because lights should autowin vs assaults but because a mechs twist rate should be wholly a factor of that mech, not the mechs ground speed. Thus, you could have a Light mech without a huge engine that remains agile. That makes engine size a more meaningful choice. A Urbanmech at Atlas speed should move Atlas speed, but not twist at Atlas speed.

In my opinion, it completely devalues the large engines - you may as well literally remove everything past 350 from the game, because the tonnage increase past that is far too steep to even consider if all it does is give you 3-6 or whatever kph.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 25 May 2016 - 08:04 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2016 - 08:04 AM, said:

Considering the QQ from other pilots on reddit, I guess I would be willing to try out the KDK-3 losing all quirks, so long as the 1 and 5 get them in return. Granted I still don't think the quad 10 build is really the most dangerous build for comp, but then again we won't have a good test of that for a while.

As much as I looked forward to the KDK-3 from day one, I've not been playing mine much at all and instead focusing on the others, just because I want the furor to settle down first and, if PGI does decide to (in traditional PGI fashion) nerfhammer it into oblivion, I don't want to lose something I got used to.

I'm still fine with it losing it's quirks, now we know hitboxes are being fixed. I don't find the 1 terrible to pilot as it stands, despite somewhat unfortunate hardpoint setups, so the 3 being at that point won't matter too much. As I said at the beginning of the thread, removing the KDK-3's quirks isn't going to make it a lot weaker. You basically only need to twist when under fire from multiple mechs (because you can simply facetank any one mech and push UAC10 shells through it's CT) or when too many UAC's jam. It's not like the other variants, that really need to twist more.

[1453 R]

Wintersdark, on 25 May 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

...
And for the record, I'm a strong proponent of decoupling engine size from agility for everyone. It's stupid that agility is tied to speed, not because lights should autowin vs assaults but because a mechs twist rate should be wholly a factor of that mech, not the mechs ground speed. Thus, you could have a Light mech without a huge engine that remains agile. That makes engine size a more meaningful choice. A Urbanmech at Atlas speed should move Atlas speed, but not twist at Atlas speed.

A lot of folks, myself included, see it the other way - decoupling mobility from engine size pretty much flat removes any remaining reason to put anything but the smallest viable engine in any given 'Mech. What does increasing engine cap do for you, if it doesn't offer the improved mobility it currently does? Straight groundspeed is almost never worth spending huge amounts of tonnage on - hell, people don't want to spend two tons on M.A.S.C. for the Shadow Cat because they feel it doesn't add anything significant to the 'Mech. They only want M.A.S.C. on larger 'Mechs like the Executioner or Spirit Bear for the accel/decel bonuses, not the groundspeed, and barely the twist speeds.

A Kodiak with a cXL400 should move better than a Kodiak with a cXL250 - but if engine size is decoupled from mobility, then you'll see a whole flim-flammin' lot of cXL250 Kodiaks with more guns than any Whale, simply because spending fourteen tons to get back up to that 375 no longer actually buys them any realistic benefit. No non-Spirit Bear Kodiak is going to make any kind of pursuit 'Mech anyways, so why not cut out fourteen tons they can spend on ammo or extra lasers or whatever?

Same with most anything else, all the way down the weight ranges. If your engine has absolutely no impact whatsoever on your mobility, then what's the functionality in spending any more tonnage on engine than you absolutely have to? I'm one of those who loves the 'over-engined' Clan 'Mechs, spent a ton of money on Vipers to back up my own impassioned plea for them back in the day (can't find the thread, search system seems to be buggy...)...and I would be kinda hard-pressed to justify spending five or ten or fifteen extra tons on engine if it bought me absolutely nothing but raw footspeed.

People already tend to try to shave their engine sizes down as much as possible for MOAR GUNZ, as the near-mania for the Night Gyr illustrated. Why reinforce that sad tendency?

[Wintersdark]

Widowmaker1981, on 25 May 2016 - 08:04 AM, said:

In my opinion, it completely devalues the large engines - you may as well literally remove everything past 350 from the game, because the tonnage increase past that is far too steep to even consider if all it does is give you 3-6 or whatever kph.

For 100t assaults, yes. Speed is derived from tonnage and rating, and agility purely from speed. Our agility quirks are so much more significant than engine rating related agility on 100t assaults as to make it largely irrelevant. Going from 350-400 gets you 10 degrees/second (73.5 > 84), whereas typically agility quirks are around 35% (so 73.5 > 99.3)

Instead, agility should be determined on a per-chassis basis. Maybe a modifier for the engine, but per chassis. That allows as a previous poster noted chassis to be further differentiated by agility.

Also, while I get your feeling with regards to very large engines, having agility be wholly determined by speed totally devalues smaller engines. If anything (as per Battletech anyways) MWO should be much slower moving, but nobody wants to do that in most cases because moving slower also means you can't aim as well due to sluggish torso movement. Not only does this mean that smaller engines (for a range of mechs, not just the biggest ones) aren't a viable option, but it means that mechs with lower engine caps are forced into sluggishness not intended by Battletech.

[Bishop Steiner]

Widowmaker1981, on 25 May 2016 - 08:04 AM, said:

In my opinion, it completely devalues the large engines - you may as well literally remove everything past 350 from the game, because the tonnage increase past that is far too steep to even consider if all it does is give you 3-6 or whatever kph.

I can see that, but feel how currently implemented, is broken, too.

How about a system where the basic twist rates/agility are by chassis/role, and engines still increase twist, but are a much smaller part of the formula?

Because a VTR or Boarshead should NOT outtwist a 50 tonner, especially when the 50 tonner can't even mount those same size engines.

[Gas Guzzler]

Well a 50 tonner has no business going 70 kph in this game... unless it's a dual gauss Hunchback.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gas Guzzler, on 25 May 2016 - 08:52 AM, said:

Well a 50 tonner has no business going 70 kph in this game... unless it's a dual gauss Hunchback.

engine size to twist... who me the HBK can can mount a 300 or higher engine? Show me the atlas or VTR or AWS running a smaller than 300 engine.

That's all I'm saying about engine size to twist.

[Ultimax]

Wintersdark, on 25 May 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

The stated design goal is for mechs to be roughly equal. Whether it should be or not doesn't matter, that's how it's supposed to be in MWO.

Can you please show me where, on this website the only outlet of official information for MWO, that the intended design goal is stated as such?

Aside from that not being found, I don't believe "being equal" is the goal.

The goal should be to have ROLES and those roles provide VALUE to the team.

There is no way a 35T mech should be as valuable as 100T mech in pure combat capability, ever.

Should they both have roles that are of roughly similar overall value to the team based on the map and mission?

Yes. But that is an issue with MAPS and MODES - so constantly fighting to nerf mechs, equipment, everything to make lights and mediums "equal" to heavies and assaults is a fool's errand.

Their roles need to be given more value, the mechs themselves shouldn't just be quirked until they can play the damage/survivability game as good as bigger mechs. That's role cannibalization.

Wintersdark, on 25 May 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

And for the record, I'm a strong proponent of decoupling engine size from agility for everyone. It's stupid that agility is tied to speed, not because lights should autowin vs assaults but because a mechs twist rate should be wholly a factor of that mech, not the mechs ground speed.

Agility isn't tied to "speed" its tied to how powerful your engine is, relative to the size of your mech.

How is that stupid? Shouldn't a bigger engine provide more power?

Individual mechs are receiving individual quirks to enhance their agility where needed - this addresses the second portion of "factor of the mech" already.

So, I see no reason agility needs to be decoupled from large engines, because that is one of the three reasons we even use large engines.

[1453 R]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 May 2016 - 08:57 AM, said:

engine size to twist... who me the HBK can can mount a 300 or higher engine? Show me the atlas or VTR or AWS running a smaller than 300 engine.

That's all I'm saying about engine size to twist.

Well, the other thing to consider is that certain larger 'Mechs need the twist/accel/decel as much as the smaller ones do. Victors are brawly demi-assaults with bad hitboxes and not much armament - should they be as sluggish as Dire Whales because they just so happen to've tipped into the 'Assault' category?

Do Timber Wolves need to be as infuriatingly brick-like as a CTF-4X because they just-so-happen to be heavy 'Mechs, and never mind that they've spent a huge amount of extra tonnage on a monster engine they would then derive no benefit from?

I get that medium and light pilots are feeling quite ill-used - I tend to prefer the 40-65 ton range myself - but a lot of these bigger machines just don't work without the extra mobility a monster engine gives them. Would the Wubshee even exist if it moved like a one-legged camel in a tar pit? Why would anyone ever use it over the Mauler if it moved like a Mauler but carried a third of the shooting power?

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 25 May 2016 - 09:02 AM, said:

Well, the other thing to consider is that certain larger 'Mechs need the twist/accel/decel as much as the smaller ones do. Victors are brawly demi-assaults with bad hitboxes and not much armament - should they be as sluggish as Dire Whales because they just so happen to've tipped into the 'Assault' category?

Do Timber Wolves need to be as infuriatingly brick-like as a CTF-4X because they just-so-happen to be heavy 'Mechs, and never mind that they've spent a huge amount of extra tonnage on a monster engine they would then derive no benefit from?

I get that medium and light pilots are feeling quite ill-used - I tend to prefer the 40-65 ton range myself - but a lot of these bigger machines just don't work without the extra mobility a monster engine gives them. Would the Wubshee even exist if it moved like a one-legged camel in a tar pit? Why would anyone ever use it over the Mauler if it moved like a Mauler but carried a third of the shooting power?

which is why I said role shoudl be considered, as part of setting base twist and mobility, and that engine should matter, but to a much lesser degree.

[Ultimax]

1453 R, on 25 May 2016 - 09:02 AM, said:

Well, the other thing to consider is that certain larger 'Mechs need the twist/accel/decel as much as the smaller ones do. Victors are brawly demi-assaults with bad hitboxes and not much armament - should they be as sluggish as Dire Whales because they just so happen to've tipped into the 'Assault' category?

We had literally this, Victors died.

A 400XL Victor was torso twisting like an Atlas, without the extra structure or armor while still being comparatively huge vs. every mech in the medium weight class.

A 400XL engine weighs 33.5 tons. That's about 61% the weight of an entire Shadowhawk, Griffin, SCR, etc.


Shouldn't that much weight actually provide value over a few measly kph and an extra bonus DHS slot? It's an engine size that is barely worth it to begin with.

Edited by Ultimax, 25 May 2016 - 09:09 AM.

[Dawnstealer]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 May 2016 - 08:45 AM, said:

I can see that, but feel how currently implemented, is broken, too.

How about a system where the basic twist rates/agility are by chassis/role, and engines still increase twist, but are a much smaller part of the formula?

Because a VTR or Boarshead should NOT outtwist a 50 tonner, especially when the 50 tonner can't even mount those same size engines.

What if a bigger engine gave you more engine hits? Like a built-in durability?

[1453 R]

Ultimax, on 25 May 2016 - 09:01 AM, said:

Can you please show me where, on this website the only outlet of official information for MWO, that the intended design goal is stated as such?

Aside from that not being found, I don't believe "being equal" is the goal.

The goal should be to have ROLES and those roles provide VALUE to the team.

There is no way a 35T mech should be as valuable as 100T mech in pure combat capability, ever.

Should they both have roles that are of roughly similar overall value to the team based on the map and mission?

Yes. But that is an issue with MAPS and MODES - so constantly fighting to nerf mechs, equipment, everything to make lights and mediums "equal" to heavies and assaults is a fool's errand.

Their roles need to be given more value, the mechs themselves shouldn't just be quirked until they can play the damage/survivability game as good as bigger mechs. That's role cannibalization.

That's the sort of reasoning that leads people to believing that Spiders are perfectly acceptable, because their ROLE is to scout, find the enemy, and then sit in the back and bask in the glory of having Accomplished Their Mission.

Everything in the game should be combat-viable because the game is centered exclusively on combat. They don't need to be combat viable in the same way, which is something the Quirk Lords of Normalization Mountain seem to be missing, but there should never be a 'Mech in the game that is just honestly incapable of fighting. Because nobody would want to fly that 'Mech, for the reason of being completely and utterly useless for the vast majority of any given game.

Ultimax, on 25 May 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

We had literally this, Victors died.

A 400XL Victor was torso twisting like an Atlas, without the extra structure or armor while still being comparatively huge vs. every mech in the medium weight class.

A 400XL engine weighs 33.5 tons. That's about 61% the weight of an entire Shadowhawk, Griffin, SCR, etc.


Shouldn't that much weight actually provide value over a few measly kph and an extra bonus DHS slot? It's an engine size that is barely worth it to begin with.

Quoted the wrong guy, mang. I like big engines giving big benefits, I'm arguing against the folks who want everything to move like slo-mo mudslides because fatbros should take fifteen seconds to turn 180 and be automatic free kills for light pilots.

[Ultimax]

1453 R, on 25 May 2016 - 09:17 AM, said:

That's the sort of reasoning that leads people to believing that Spiders are perfectly acceptable, because their ROLE is to scout, find the enemy, and then sit in the back and bask in the glory of having Accomplished Their Mission.

Everything in the game should be combat-viable because the game is centered exclusively on combat.

I'm not saying every mech shouldn't have combat viability, they should of course.

But expecting a 30T light mech to have "equal" combat viability to a 75 or 100 ton mech is ridiculous.

1453 R, on 25 May 2016 - 09:17 AM, said:

Quoted the wrong guy, mang. I like big engines giving big benefits, I'm arguing against the folks who want everything to move like slo-mo mudslides because fatbros should take fifteen seconds to turn 180 and be automatic free kills for light pilots.

Sorry, my wording didn't make it apparent but I was more tagging onto and agreeing with your line of thought than attacking your point.