124 replies to this topic

[Widowmaker1981]

For it comes down to this: by far and away my favourite class of mech in this game is what i call 'super heavy' - assaults with gigantic engines that play like huge heavies, and decoupling engine size from agility removes that class of mech entirely (because they will be just as sluggish as the slower assaults, and therefore pointless, because straight line speed is a minor consideration) - so in this case my bias will not let me support it.

The fact that its also logical that a bigger power plant would provide more force to twist and turn faster is nice, but secondary.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 25 May 2016 - 09:33 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Dawnstealer, on 25 May 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

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

dont think it would be as much a benefit as agility, in practice, but not gonna shoot it down, out of hand, either.

[Gas Guzzler]

As far as decoupling engines goes, the light/medium jocks want it, the heavy/assault guys like it the way it is. Bias.

Is it worth an inkling of development time in my opinion? **** no.

Let's work on adding worthwhile features on the game, not nit-picky mech movement mechanics and BS meta-shifting mechanics (like GH2). Game modes, more depth to FP (probably a lost cause at this point), information type modules (counter-UAV, seismic decoys, deployable seismic sensors, lots of other cool stuff), Solaris, etc. That's what the game needs, not nit-picky little changes that some people want. There are much bigger fish to fry. #MakeMechWarriorGreatAgain

To a certain degree, quirks ALREADY give mechs added agility based on their role, although the Banshee gets none, maybe that deserves some more thought (mega ballistic robots like the Mauler and Kodiak-3 don't really need the extra agility where as energy boats and SRM brawlers SHOULD have the added agility).

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 25 May 2016 - 09:44 AM.

[Wintersdark]

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?

Russ has said it himself, in town halls and such. I could care less if you consider they are "official" or not, he's the head cheese. What he says about his goals for the game are 100% what they are [at least at that time]. Russ has been completely open about this from day one, frequently saying that it's very important to them that every weight class is equally viable.

Quote

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.

I don't disagree.

However, those roles don't exist, none of them exist. Combat is all that exists. Until such a time as roles do exist - in quickplay, mind you, because that's the majority of the game for good or ill - for all mechs to be equally viable all mechs need to be equally combat capable, because there isn't anything else.

We have the game we have. If modes should change, then that's a different subject. But making lights suck because you want to add roles to make them viable elsewhere - without having added those roles - is pointless.

We only have combat. That's it. So, mechs need to be good at combat or they aren't good at all.

Quote

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.

Fluff aside, the formula that calculates agility is speed vs. tonnage. That's it. You can argue it's engine rating vs tonnage if you want; it's the same thing, because speed is also engine rating vs. tonnage. I say speed though because otherwise people tend to draw incorrect conclusions about how fast something will twist - you've already seen a lot of this in the Kodiak threads, where people felt a 400 rated kodiak (without quirks) would twist as fast as a medium, which is fairly ridiculous, because nobody is running 60kph mediums. Instead of having to consider "Engine rating vs. tonnage" you can just consider "max speed" - X kph = y degrees per second, very simple. X engine rating / y tonnage = z degrees per second is needlessly complicated for the same result.

Edited by Wintersdark, 25 May 2016 - 11:32 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Gas Guzzler, on 25 May 2016 - 09:43 AM, said:

As far as decoupling engines goes, the light/medium jocks want it, the heavy/assault guys like it the way it is. Bias.

... but I'm an assault pilot, I *hate* playing lights, and I want it decoupled? Chaos!

Quote

Is it worth an inkling of development time in my opinion? **** no.

Yeah, I don't disagree with this.

Quote

To a certain degree, quirks ALREADY give mechs added agility based on their role, although the Banshee gets none, maybe that deserves some more thought (mega ballistic robots like the Mauler and Kodiak-3 don't really need the extra agility where as energy boats and SRM brawlers SHOULD have the added agility).

Yeah, quirks work for it. I just hate quirks; not because of what they are, but because PGI just can't seem to quirk things in a logical and consistent way except when they're just adding copypasta default quirks (that end up bizarrely missing certain mechs etc, etc).... But I accept as well that modifying chassis individually for agility would end up in exactly the same situation anyways, so quirks are going to have to do.


Anyways, Gas is right. While I'd strongly prefer twist be decoupled from speed, it's not going to happen, it's never going to happen, and the end result would be completely identical because PGI would have to alter chassis individually for speed, which is in practice exactly identical to quirking them (for good or ill in actual implementation) so it's ultimately pointless, and something I should have considered more before even adding that aside earlier.

So, I'll leave it at that. I'm totally uninterested in blue sky discussions that have zero chance of ever seeing implementation in the game.