59 replies to this topic

[Duke Nedo]

Hey, just something that has gone missing a little bit in the XL vs STD engine discussions: the double punishment of non-XL-friendly/engine capped heavy- and assault mechs (mainly).

Firstly there's the tonnage penalty, 9.5 tons for a STD300 engine, 11.5 tons for a STD325 engine and 14.5 tons for a STD350 hello atlas. That's one thing, probably most reflected players agree that significant bonus structure/armor is needed to compensate for such a severe tonnage handicap compared to clan XLs mainly, but also compared to IS XLs.

What is mostly not mentioned in this context is that also all agility is punished when you can't afford a big enough engine, most importantly accel/decel and twist speed. This is really punishing for mechs that could possibly cope half decently with the slow speed of a lower end STD engine, like a BNC-3E or 3S, but the lack of agility in combination with low speed is devastating for the performance of these mechs. The BNC-3E used to be a powerhouse before clan XLs.

Therefore I'd like to bring some attention to this old request again: DECOUPLE AGILITY FROM THE ENGINE!!! If you do that you can afford a quite a bit weaker structure-bonuses for STD engines. As it is now, lots and lots of IS mechs have pretty extreme quirks for yaw rate and acc/decc as well as structure, something that would not be as necessary if engine size did not dictate your agility rates for all mechs.

If you want to get a feel for how punishing this is just for arguments sake, first make a drop in a AS9-D for example with 3xLPL+1x AC20 and STD325 if I remember correctly, while far from meta it's quite possible to have fun and somewhat good games in one because the AS9's have great agility quirks (35% acc/decc, 40% yaw rate). Now try the same build in a sadly forgotten BNC-3E that doesn't have any agility quirks and no durability quirks and cry.

If we also consider the incoming skill tree I think this requires some attention. Lots and lots of mechs now depend on agility quirks, and quite a few are forgotten and suffer in silence, most notably most of the Stalkers, non-wubshee Banshees and Direwolves.

Ps. my wubshee desperately wants to be de-nerfed too.

[Black Ivan]

Defintily agree

[El Bandito]

My NGyrs have no issue with this.

[kesmai]

No.
With this whole discussion we will end with a game that has nothing to do with battletech anymore.
Decoupling agility from engine size. Equalizing clan and is xl. Next will be all weapons available to both sides, then there will be a equalizing path for hardpoint height and number. Then...
We will end up with generic mechs that look all the same, play all the same...
Imho we should go the opposite direction and pgi should really look into the assymetric drop number not possible thing again.
Where is a batchall system for clans?
What about battlevalue for mechs and components?
Where is a unit rating for groupdrops/fw?
Why are mercs available to clans?
What about a functioning Galatea/Outreach system like mrbc?
Why do clan mechs drop with is mechs in public queues?
And so on. Most of the above isn't even made up, but was promised by pgi. Strange, isn't it?

[Dogstar]

>My NGyrs have no issue with this

Gosh, could that be something to do with them being clan mechs and having clan XL engines and thus being faster and with better agility?

Surely not...

Please don't compare one of the better clan mechs with some of the poorer IS mechs

[Snazzy Dragon]

Decouple? No. Make the difference between a 300 and 350 less like a dancing barge versus a dancing ballerina? Yes.

But ONLY if lights get their old agilities back. The last thing we need is more heavies and assaults that aren't bothered keeping sight of a light mech.

[Duke Nedo]

kesmai, on 09 January 2017 - 01:44 AM, said:

No.
With this whole discussion we will end with a game that has nothing to do with battletech anymore.
Decoupling agility from engine size. Equalizing clan and is xl. Next will be all weapons available to both sides, then there will be a equalizing path for hardpoint height and number. Then...
We will end up with generic mechs that look all the same, play all the same...
Imho we should go the opposite direction and pgi should really look into the assymetric drop number not possible thing again.
Where is a batchall system for clans?
What about battlevalue for mechs and components?
Where is a unit rating for groupdrops/fw?
Why are mercs available to clans?
What about a functioning Galatea/Outreach system like mrbc?
Why do clan mechs drop with is mechs in public queues?
And so on. Most of the above isn't even made up, but was promised by pgi. Strange, isn't it?

The only thing this accomplishes is to increase the power-gap between XL-mechs and STD-mechs. You already get extra speed and extra cooling (or extra space for coling), you don't really need agility on top of that.

Right now quirks take care of it for most mechs. From your perspective, think KDK vs DWF. The DWF doesn't need to be punished an extra time for having a low end locked engine, it doesn't make anything in MWO better.

Snazzy Dragon, on 09 January 2017 - 02:32 AM, said:

Decouple? No. Make the difference between a 300 and 350 less like a dancing barge versus a dancing ballerina? Yes.

But ONLY if lights get their old agilities back. The last thing we need is more heavies and assaults that aren't bothered keeping sight of a light mech.

I am not saying all mechs should have the same agility, but I think I'd rather couple agility to weight than to engine size. Or perhaps to movement archetype to allow some flexibility?

[El Bandito]

kesmai, on 09 January 2017 - 01:44 AM, said:

No.
With this whole discussion we will end with a game that has nothing to do with battletech anymore.
Decoupling agility from engine size. Equalizing clan and is xl. Next will be all weapons available to both sides, then there will be a equalizing path for hardpoint height and number.

Hold on, since when did decoupling engine size and twist speed matter in TT rules? There was no such torso twisting mechanic there. PGI is not breaking any TT rules by doing this. Many other Mechwarrior games certainly didn't care about engine size affecting torso twist.

Edited by El Bandito, 09 January 2017 - 03:12 AM.

[kesmai]

Duke Nedo, on 09 January 2017 - 02:40 AM, said:

The only thing this accomplishes is to increase the power-gap between XL-mechs and STD-mechs. You already get extra speed and extra cooling (or extra space for coling), you don't really need agility on top of that.

Right now quirks take care of it for most mechs. From your perspective, think KDK vs DWF. The DWF doesn't need to be punished an extra time for having a low end locked engine, it doesn't make anything in MWO better.



I am not saying all mechs should have the same agility, but I think I'd rather couple agility to weight than to engine size. Or perhaps to movement archetype to allow some flexibility?

Yeah kdk. Good example. Fantasy hardpoints, ac/20 fitting in machingun hardpoints (aka full slot customzation) etc. I could go on.
I see no reason to defend the basic famework this game operates in.
Most of the problems where there when IS was alone, solved with bandaids and stopgap measures.(hello ghostheat).
So you decouple agility from engines, ok. I say that is just another bandaid.

[Pjwned]

kesmai, on 09 January 2017 - 01:44 AM, said:

No.
With this whole discussion we will end with a game that has nothing to do with battletech anymore.
Decoupling agility from engine size. Equalizing clan and is xl. Next will be all weapons available to both sides, then there will be a equalizing path for hardpoint height and number.

This issue has nothing to do with Battletech, it's strictly a Mechwarrior issue.

What basis do you have to invoke Battletech in order to whine about this? Nothing? Oh okay, you can leave and take your buzzwords with you.

Snazzy Dragon, on 09 January 2017 - 02:32 AM, said:

Decouple? No. Make the difference between a 300 and 350 less like a dancing barge versus a dancing ballerina? Yes.

Or there could just not be a difference at all because agility should depend on the chassis and not the engine.

Quote

But ONLY if lights get their old agilities back. The last thing we need is more heavies and assaults that aren't bothered keeping sight of a light mech.

Or heavy/assault mechs could just be less agile on average, that would work too.

[kesmai]

Pjwned, on 09 January 2017 - 03:24 AM, said:

This issue has nothing to do with Battletech, it's strictly a Mechwarrior issue.

What basis do you have to invoke Battletech in order to whine about this? Nothing? Oh okay, you can leave and take your buzzwords with you.



Or there could just not be a difference at all because agility should depend on the chassis and not the engine.



Or heavy/assault mechs could just be less agile on average, that would work too.

I dare to say most of us are here because:
MechwarriorOnline.
A Battletech game.
Aren't you?

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Dogstar, on 09 January 2017 - 02:26 AM, said:

Gosh, could that be something to do with them being clan mechs and having clan XL engines and thus being faster and with better agility?

Night Gyrs have a 300 rated engine in a 75 ton frame, its speed is on par with assaults and slower than top IS heavy builds on average. So a global agility change basing it on something like tonnage purely instead of tonnage+engine rating could give a considerable boost to the Night Gyr.

El Bandito is likely just taking a jab at this change designed to boost underperforming IS mechs also giving a boost to a top performing clan mech.

[Duke Nedo]

Dakota1000, on 09 January 2017 - 03:32 AM, said:

Night Gyrs have a 300 rated engine in a 75 ton frame, its speed is on par with assaults and slower than top IS heavy builds on average. So a global agility change basing it on something like tonnage purely instead of tonnage+engine rating could give a considerable boost to the Night Gyr.

El Bandito is likely just taking a jab at this change designed to boost underperforming IS mechs also giving a boost to a top performing clan mech.

Yeah, I also read it like that. Depends on where PGI would place the baseline, it probably would be close to where the NGR is now take or give a little. The real winner would be the DWF, but I think that would be OK today... and in any case, this could be a case to use the movement archetypes more actively to set the agility performance of mechs on top of tonnage.

[Pjwned]

kesmai, on 09 January 2017 - 03:31 AM, said:

I dare to say most of us are here because:
MechwarriorOnline.
A Battletech game.
Aren't you?

Pretty sure you're missing the point there...entirely. Torso twisting doesn't exist anywhere else in Battletech because it's only a factor in Mechwarrior, which means that crying about Battletech here makes zero sense and it shows you don't have an actual argument other than "I (apparently) don't like it so I'll throw out some buzzwords and that will show them good."

But to answer your question, no I'm actually not here because it's a Battletech game, and I think you probably overestimate how many people actually care very much about that.

If you still miss the point and want to ramble on more about Battletech then I'm not going to respond further.

Dakota1000, on 09 January 2017 - 03:32 AM, said:

Night Gyrs have a 300 rated engine in a 75 ton frame, its speed is on par with assaults and slower than top IS heavy builds on average. So a global agility change basing it on something like tonnage purely instead of tonnage+engine rating could give a considerable boost to the Night Gyr.

El Bandito is likely just taking a jab at this change designed to boost underperforming IS mechs also giving a boost to a top performing clan mech.

That's really not necessarily true, most heavy/assault mechs are too agile now even with modest size engines, and I would hope that a 75-ton mech would move like an assault mech considering it's only 1 step below an assault mech and its agility should be tuned accordingly too.

If the expectation is that mechs with smaller engines be normalized up to huge mechs that move like ballerinas (e.g Kodiaks) then that is stupid.

[LordNothing]

im all for a few subtle effects to give standards a bit of special flavor.

make them increase your range of motion by 10-25%. because the engine takes up less space, their is more room for the machinery that twits and pitches the torso to operate, and this gives the mech an intrinsic buff while the std is equipped.

std engine might raise the armor cap on the ct of the mech that it is equipped on, likewise xl would increase the armor cap of all 3 sections (by the same amount, just split 3 ways). this isnt free armor, you still need to allocate tonnage.

make external armor equipments available to is. it takes up 2 slots, and increases the armor cap by 1 ton. you can use them to shore up the ct and sts depending on which engine type is equipped. they increase the cap only and you have to allocate tonnage.

i kind of think clan omnis should get a little bit more control over their engines. engines of ratings +/- 15-25 from stock are allowed, and you may equip std if you desire (with the same std perks as mentioned above).

Edited by LordNothing, 09 January 2017 - 04:15 AM.

[Pjwned]

LordNothing, on 09 January 2017 - 04:12 AM, said:

im all for a few subtle effects to give standards a bit of special flavor.

make them increase your range of motion by 10-25%. because the engine takes up less space, their is more room for the machinery that twits and pitches the torso to operate, and this gives the mech an intrinsic buff while the std is equipped.

std engine might raise the armor cap on the ct of the mech that it is equipped on, likewise xl would increase the armor cap of all 3 sections (by the same amount, just split 3 ways). this isnt free armor, you still need to allocate tonnage.

make external armor equipments available to is. it takes up 2 slots, and increases the armor cap by 1 ton. you can use them to shore up the ct and sts depending on which engine type is equipped. they increase the cap only and you have to allocate tonnage.

i kind of think clan omnis should get a little bit more control over their engines. engines of ratings +/- 15-25 from stock are allowed, and you may equip std if you desire (with the same std perks as mentioned above).

If we want STD engines to get special buffs to compensate for lower agility, then why not just normalize them to give the same agility as the XL engine of the same weight? That's not what I want to do because I think it's a dumb idea, but that would be a simple way of "fixing" the issue.

[kesmai]

Ok, my BT ramble was ********.
In the back of my memory it seems we already had such a discussion as early as 2013.
Just let me understand how a bigger engine with more power does not affect mobility and agility of a engine driven machine that depends on said power.
If it is just a mechwarrior balance thing for the sake of balance without a logical explanation, then i also can get back to my BT ramble, because it makes no sense to balance isolated issues without looking at the framework existing, which imho should be as close to the available information about the franchise it exists upon.

[Alan Davion]

kesmai, on 09 January 2017 - 01:44 AM, said:

No.
With this whole discussion we will end with a game that has nothing to do with battletech anymore.
Decoupling agility from engine size.
1. Equalizing clan and is xl.
2. Next will be all weapons available to both sides, then there will be a equalizing path for hardpoint height and number. Then...
We will end up with generic mechs that look all the same, play all the same...
Imho we should go the opposite direction and pgi should really look into the assymetric drop number not possible thing again.
3. Where is a batchall system for clans?
4. What about battlevalue for mechs and components?
5. Where is a unit rating for groupdrops/fw?
6. Why are mercs available to clans?
7. What about a functioning Galatea/Outreach system like mrbc?
8. Why do clan mechs drop with is mechs in public queues?
And so on. Most of the above isn't even made up, but was promised by pgi. Strange, isn't it?

Numbered for easier discussion.

1. There are literally just two options here. One. IS and Clan XLs are made equal. You and I both know this would cause a shite-storm of EPIC proportions from the Clan side of the player base cause "MUH OP MIN/MAX CLAM SUPER MECH". Or Two. PGI gets off its collective ARSE and adds in IS Tech 2 and more, including the IS Light Fusion Engine, giving the IS more options to build mechs to combat the superior Clan technology.

And please, don't insult me by claiming Clan tech isn't superior to IS tech for one reason or another, locked equipment and all that, we all know it is.

2. Never going to happen. There are only a few weapons on either side that would be 'must haves" for one side or the other. IS ACs for example, I'd bet most Clan players would take an IS AC over a Clan UAC/AC/LBX any day of the week. And we all know that nobody would use LRMs cause they are still the worst shite in the game.

3. Impossible to implement. Even in CW this would require coding that I would guess is beyond PGIs ability. There are just too many variables to try and account for. How do you compensate the IS for example? Do you make tonnage a variable number for each side, allowing each side to bring the heaviest stuff they can? If so how do you keep it balanced to avoid the Clans simply ROFLstomping everything as they already do?

Do you force the Clans into a 1/1/1/1 drop deck, forcing them to take only one of each weight class? Do you drop Clan drop decks to 3 while the IS stays at 4? etc etc.

4. This is quite honestly the ONLY thing PGI could do that would have even the SLIGHTEST hope of bringing true balance to the game. Give every piece of tech, from AMS to XL engines a BV number, and the total BV for the mech determines how it stacks up against any other given mech.

For example, lets say something like the Shadow Hawk 2H, in its stock config is something like 1,000 points, meanwhile, lets say a stock Timber Wolf Prime has a total like 2,500. Now lets say both mechs are built to be fully min/maxed by the players. The SHD-2H maybe only gets up to 1,800, while the TBR might reach as high as 5,000 depending on the Omnipods used, because those would have a BV attached to them as well.

In quick play this would mean very little as IS and Clan mechs show up on both sides. But in CW/FW, it would finally signal real balance between the two sides as the Clans would in all likelihood be forced into taking fewer mechs than the IS as there would have to be a BV pool for each side and drop deck. Lets say your drop deck has a 10k limit. If you want to take fully optimized mechs, you might only be able to take 2 mechs as outlined above.

Meanwhile, the IS might be able to take all 4 of their fully optimized mechs into a CW/FW drop deck. This would give the IS a real chance to actually compete in CW/FW, instead of just getting steamrolled every time.

5. Much like the PSR system we suffer under right now, I doubt any unit rating system would be any better than the PSR system. What factors would you use to determine how a rating is assigned? Just like the batchall system there are just too damn many variables to account for here.

6. This unfortunately goes right to the very core of the absolutely piss f***ing poor design of the CW/FW system, in addition to the pitifully small playerbase of MWO itself. We would need a playerbase at least 5 times bigger than we have now for there to be a fully functioning CW/FW.

Not to mention the continual imbalance between Clans and IS. Like any video game, people will gravitate towards whatever gives them the mot advantage.

Such as in Battlefield, players will invariably gravitate towards whatever weapon has the most favorable combination of stats. For example in Battlefield 3, the M16A3 was without a doubt the undeniable best weapon in the game for a long time until DICE tweaked its stats to make it less favorable, and players would simply flock to the next best weapon in the pecking order.

Because of the poor design of CW/FW and the superiority of the Clans, the most players will gravitate towards the Clans because they have all the advantages, the IS have absurdly few, if any real advantages.

7. Again, impossible to implement for all the above mentioned reasons. Too many variables, piss f***ing poor overall design of CW/FW, and a far too small player base. This would in all likelihood work far better in the upcoming MW5: Mercenaries.

8. In quick play this is literally the only way IS and Clan mechs are actually balanced, because both sides can use both types of mechs. The stronger Clan mechs on both sides make up for the weaknesses of the IS mechs on both sides.

[El Bandito]

kesmai, on 09 January 2017 - 05:11 AM, said:

Ok, my BT ramble was ********.
In the back of my memory it seems we already had such a discussion as early as 2013.
Just let me understand how a bigger engine with more power does not affect mobility and agility of a engine driven machine that depends on said power.
If it is just a mechwarrior balance thing for the sake of balance without a logical explanation, then i also can get back to my BT ramble, because it makes no sense to balance isolated issues without looking at the framework existing, which imho should be as close to the available information about the franchise it exists upon.

Gameplay > all. Same reason why MGs have such crap range, and why bigger ACs have shorter range, in contrast to real life. Heck, MWO's version of Commando can't even realistically fit a pilot in that head, but PGI had to make it that tiny so it won't get killed so easily.

Edited by El Bandito, 09 January 2017 - 05:46 AM.

[Pjwned]

kesmai, on 09 January 2017 - 05:11 AM, said:

Ok, my BT ramble was ********.
In the back of my memory it seems we already had such a discussion as early as 2013.
Just let me understand how a bigger engine with more power does not affect mobility and agility of a engine driven machine that depends on said power.
If it is just a mechwarrior balance thing for the sake of balance without a logical explanation, then i also can get back to my BT ramble, because it makes no sense to balance isolated issues without looking at the framework existing, which imho should be as close to the available information about the franchise it exists upon.

"Balance for the sake of balance" seems perfectly fine to me, and I find it hilarious that you don't think that's good enough.