40 replies to this topic

[MeiSooHaityu]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Widowmaker1981]

If im honest im very unhappy about decoupling engines from agilty, because it takes my favourite class in the game, superheavies (mid weight assaults with enormous engines so they play like heavies) and says "eff you, you dont get to exist anymore"

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Basically a massive nerf to the over-engined, under-gunned Clan omnis (Gargoyle, Linebacker, Ice Ferret) that were only semi-viable (if that!) because of their additional mobility...due to engine size. Ironically, helps the under-engined omnis that people use more anyway.

I don't mind the principle. Just you would need to mobility buff the heck out of something like the Gargoyle (which has poor weapons hardpoints as well) to get it back to its current (generally) underperforming state. The Linebacker's only advantage in close quarters combat vs the Ebon was its agility. It can't mount as many weapons or heatsinks and the straight-line speed advantage isn't nearly enough to make the choice even close (as it is the choice usually isn't close).

[Silas7]

Hope my Bl-6b-knt makes it through this change ok.

[Duke Nedo]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 February 2017 - 04:11 AM, said:

If im honest im very unhappy about decoupling engines from agilty, because it takes my favourite class in the game, superheavies (mid weight assaults with enormous engines so they play like heavies) and says "eff you, you dont get to exist anymore"

That is assuming they remove all mobility quirks permanently, but that's not really possible... that would nerf most of the less good mechs and do little with the NGR for example.

There are some good things, like:

• They rein in the agility of some top performers a bit, like KDK, TBR, MAD-IIc, SCR, SMN-M, without handing out negative quirks.
  
• Slow mechs with lots of guns and omnis with locked small engines or battlemechs with low max-rating for engines should experience a buff, like DWF, ADR, KFX, some MAL-builds, BNC-3E, and a few others.
  
• Over all, the span between the best and the worst mechs in the game is probably narrowed a little (though NGR is the exception, and I guess MAD-IIc can build around it).

but there are a few bads that hurt too, like:

• It will do exactly nothing with the performance of NGRs and HBK-IIc and other clan battlemechs with medium to optimal engine ratings that get all their superiority from good geometry combined with clan tech light equipment
  
• The removal of mobility quirks will seriously nerf a lot of "bad" mechs that relied on mobility to suck a little bit less, like VTR, ZEU, AWS, etc. There are many of them! Search the quirks page for "torso turn rate" and count the hits!
  
• It will also reduce variety in how some mechs handle, like the GAR, IFR, LBK, BNC-3M, BLRs, EXE, CDA, LCT etc etc etc. These are also all mechs that don't need to be nerfed.

Well... as long as they don't think they can remove the mobility quirks permanently it could be a good thing, if nothing else as a stealth nerf to the top performing clan mechs except the NGR. The PTS will have rekt faction balance though so prepare for the shitstorm...

Edited by Duke Nedo, 21 February 2017 - 06:13 AM.

[SamMaster]

Quote

Many ‘Mechs previously balanced around superior Mobility Quirks will instead see those Quirks integrated into the inherent Mobility attributes of the 'Mech. Those inherent Mobility attributes will then be evaluated and adjusted against similar 'Mechs within their tonnage bracket. For example, the Phoenix Hawk will be provided with higher baseline Mobility stats compared to the Blackjack.


This change allows for the following changes to the Skill Tree:

• With Mobility Quirks now rolled into the base Mobility attributes of a ‘Mech, Skill Nodes will have greater influence over the final Mobility attributes of a ‘Mech when compared to their impact previously seen under the Quirk system.
• Creates greater value for Mobility-based Skill bonuses for ‘Mechs which possess naturally high Mobility attributes.
• Streamlines the influence of the Skill Tree on ‘Mech Mobility, providing more transparency within the MechLab in terms of how Skill Nodes influence the Mobility of a ‘Mech.

I do not post much, but I felt compelled to point this out to those thinking the agile mechs will lose their superior agility quirks (it is written right there!). The Gargoyle and others based on agility will probably have higher base stats then others in the same weight class, and will benefit more from agility skill nodes.

Edited by SamMaster, 21 February 2017 - 06:25 AM.

[process]

IF PGI can pull this off well, it will add some much needed depth and diversity to the overall mech roster. As they add more and more mechs, there is an increasing risk that newer mechs will be redundant or obsolete old mechs. This revised system gives PGI the ability to innately tune each chassis's performance without the compounding effect of engine size.

The short-term risk is if PGI fails to adequately compensate IS mechs, it may highlight more disparities between IS and Clan XL engines.

Edited by process, 21 February 2017 - 06:46 AM.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Duke Nedo, on 21 February 2017 - 06:10 AM, said:

That is assuming they remove all mobility quirks permanently, but that's not really possible... that would nerf most of the less good mechs and do little with the NGR for example.

There are some good things, like:

• They rein in the agility of some top performers a bit, like KDK, TBR, MAD-IIc, SCR, SMN-M, without handing out negative quirks.
  
• Slow mechs with lots of guns and omnis with locked small engines or battlemechs with low max-rating for engines should experience a buff, like DWF, ADR, KFX, some MAL-builds, BNC-3E, and a few others.
  
• Over all, the span between the best and the worst mechs in the game is probably narrowed a little (though NGR is the exception, and I guess MAD-IIc can build around it).

but there are a few bads that hurt too, like:

• It will do exactly nothing with the performance of NGRs and HBK-IIc and other clan battlemechs with medium to optimal engine ratings that get all their superiority from good geometry combined with clan tech light equipment
  
• The removal of mobility quirks will seriously nerf a lot of "bad" mechs that relied on mobility to suck a little bit less, like VTR, ZEU, AWS, etc. There are many of them! Search the quirks page for "torso turn rate" and count the hits!
  
• It will also reduce variety in how some mechs handle, like the GAR, IFR, LBK, BNC-3M, BLRs, EXE, CDA, LCT etc etc etc. These are also all mechs that don't need to be nerfed.

Well... as long as they don't think they can remove the mobility quirks permanently it could be a good thing, if nothing else as a stealth nerf to the top performing clan mechs except the NGR. The PTS will have rekt faction balance though so prepare for the shitstorm...

From the looks of it...this is a pretty fair assessment for both Clan and IS mechs.

I might add that I worry that Time-to-kill will be reduced for some of these Mechs that really need all the help they can reasonably get... as it will just be harder to spread that damage with reduced torso twist, which was one of the only things some of these mechs had going for them when it comes to fighting. If they provided additional chassis-linked mobility buffs to some of the current underperformers that are made even worse by this, then I would be totally in-favor of this. IMHO...We shouldn't be making low-engined, weapons boating platforms yet even more attractive vs currently much more agile, less gunned-up Mechs. Find a way to nerf the over-performers agility without providing additional pain to some under-performers that need help if anything.

[Weeny Machine]

Duke Nedo, on 21 February 2017 - 06:10 AM, said:

That is assuming they remove all mobility quirks permanently, but that's not really possible... that would nerf most of the less good mechs and do little with the NGR for example.

There are some good things, like:

• They rein in the agility of some top performers a bit, like KDK, TBR, MAD-IIc, SCR, SMN-M, without handing out negative quirks.
  
• Slow mechs with lots of guns and omnis with locked small engines or battlemechs with low max-rating for engines should experience a buff, like DWF, ADR, KFX, some MAL-builds, BNC-3E, and a few others.
  
• Over all, the span between the best and the worst mechs in the game is probably narrowed a little (though NGR is the exception, and I guess MAD-IIc can build around it).

but there are a few bads that hurt too, like:

• It will do exactly nothing with the performance of NGRs and HBK-IIc and other clan battlemechs with medium to optimal engine ratings that get all their superiority from good geometry combined with clan tech light equipment
  
• The removal of mobility quirks will seriously nerf a lot of "bad" mechs that relied on mobility to suck a little bit less, like VTR, ZEU, AWS, etc. There are many of them! Search the quirks page for "torso turn rate" and count the hits!
  
• It will also reduce variety in how some mechs handle, like the GAR, IFR, LBK, BNC-3M, BLRs, EXE, CDA, LCT etc etc etc. These are also all mechs that don't need to be nerfed.

Well... as long as they don't think they can remove the mobility quirks permanently it could be a good thing, if nothing else as a stealth nerf to the top performing clan mechs except the NGR. The PTS will have rekt faction balance though so prepare for the shitstorm...

And how often do you see a Zeus, Awesome, Victor NOW? I am sorry but I think that argument is in a way invalid simply because of that. Sure, they may get a tad worse. However, that doesn't change much. And do not forget that there is the possibility that the notorious underperformers get some quirks later.

On the other hand, the possible gain for overall balance is quite significant. I won't regurgitate all the advantages. They were already mentioned in the thread.

Once more: thumbs up for PGI

[C E Dwyer]

Acceleration and deceleration should really still be tied in with the engine size, torso twist, yaw, and turning shouldn't be linked is the perfect and most logical stance to take.

[Widowmaker1981]

Cathy, on 21 February 2017 - 11:59 AM, said:

Acceleration and deceleration should really still be tied in with the engine size, torso twist, yaw, and turning shouldn't be linked is the perfect and most logical stance to take.

Im ok with that as a compromise position.

Acc/Dec is just so important for energy boats as they cannot stay in a face to face for any length of time due to heat, so they have to be able to get in and out of cover, and that is totally unrelated to top speed, since in most typical combat situations, mechs are not reaching top speed ever. They have to be able to stack that above what is baseline for the class or they are going to get hammered by dakka that doesnt need to cool off.

(well, when referring to assaults and heavies, obviously im not suggesting dakka lights will become a thing)

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 21 February 2017 - 12:05 PM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

This does sound good in theory... I am terrified at how poorly it will be implemented in practice, though

[Tier5 Kerensky]

I don't personally know, but I'm okay with changes. The mobility skills can still be used and I think improvement is speed, so decreasing torso twist a bit is okay.

[Kaeb Odellas]

As I understand it, agility is now determined per tonnage, with agility quirks being rolled into baseline stats to maintain the agility of those mechs who need it most. An 80 ton assault will still be more agile than a 100 ton assault, unless that 100 tonner had uber-quirked agility.

Which mechs get nerfed or buffed by this change is entirely determined by what level PGI chooses as the baseline for a particular tonnage. Will all 100 tonners behave like current 400XL Kodiaks, or 300XL Dire Wolves. Will the current Timberwolf set the 75 tonner baseline, or the Night Gyr?

[Kuaron]

The idea is interesting, the motivation convincing.
But they'll have to redo large parts of the balancing now.
Exciting how it will look at the end.

From a simulation point of view, though, I don't see how it makes sense the mobility not depending on engine power. Even max speed would be more convincing in this point.

[50 50]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 February 2017 - 10:06 PM, said:

Well, hopefully mechs like the Gargles will still have high twist and such since it basically has nothing else going for it.

Just so long as we can still Leroy our way into battle and die under a hail of incoming fire in some spectacular fashion.

By the way, anyone noticed the mechs seem to be hitting the ground a bit harder on death?
Really seem to be doing a bit of a body slam.

[Arugela]

Instead of separating the stats why not make them dynamic. the weight of the vehicle goes against the horsepower of the engine and whatnot. Make it more realistic. Then as you loose or gain parts you get faster or slower. It would make much weirder and more interesting mechs and combat.

Speed should be the product of dynamics just like in real life. If you add weight you loose performance. then give everything weight properly and have it add up.

Simulating or making a chart of affects on torso twist based on horsepower or other real attributes could also allow twisting and other stats to change during combat and be affects by design desitions in the mech and mech layout. Then as you Knock off components and lose weight you get faster. And if balance is put back in the game, possibly slower if the mech can't compensate for asymmetry in it's design. Or even fall down etc. Whatever would be realistic for that mech's chassi and other design features.

Are the specifics in any way gone over in battletech lore or rule books to simulate this. Or is there enough info to derive what it would have to be for each mech? Say the servos or other parts in the limbs and how much they can carry and move based on installed components and whatnot to determine why in a realistic manner.

You would think a giant robot game with any depth might have that sort of info for various rules and lore. It's alot easier to write with specifics to go on. Unless you just make stuff up constantly and don't think...

Edited by Arugela, 26 February 2017 - 12:30 AM.

[Skribs]

I like it. It's frustrating trying to build some of my Assault Mechs that I want to primarily be tanky brawlers and have to have a large engine if I want to torso twist or hit anything moving over 70 kph.

If I put in a slow engine I'm a bad brawler, so I'd have to put in mostly ranged weapons and be a bad assault for not sharing my armor.

[Andi Nagasia]

Skribs, on 26 February 2017 - 12:53 AM, said:

I like it. It's frustrating trying to build some of my Assault Mechs that I want to primarily be tanky brawlers and have to have a large engine if I want to torso twist or hit anything moving over 70 kph.

If I put in a slow engine I'm a bad brawler, so I'd have to put in mostly ranged weapons and be a bad assault for not sharing my armor.

yup, my DWF will be able to twist finally, and the KDK will be brought down alittle,
also this allows PGI to use those Stats(once bound to the Engine) as a tuning value for mechs,
-
if a mech is under preforming PGI can inhance its mobility to make it better,
if a mech is over preforming PGI can degrade its mobility to make it lesser,

[Widowmaker1981]

Skribs, on 26 February 2017 - 12:53 AM, said:

I like it. It's frustrating trying to build some of my Assault Mechs that I want to primarily be tanky brawlers and have to have a large engine if I want to torso twist or hit anything moving over 70 kph.

If I put in a slow engine I'm a bad brawler, so I'd have to put in mostly ranged weapons and be a bad assault for not sharing my armor.

Ah, so now you can just be frustrated with no recourse, since nothing will allow you to improve your torso twist or hit anything moving over 70 kph? Does that sound better? Or maybe, you can if your mech is on PGIs approved 'more agile than a brick' list, but if your choice has, god forbid, been meta in the past? yeah, that will be on the 'less agile than the Titanic, post iceberg' list.