64 replies to this topic

[l33tworks]

I remember thinking in 2013 how annoying it was that MWO was the first mechwarrior game to tie engine size to mobility. But I realise now its one of the things it carved its own path for the better! And now they are just about to toss it so carelessly

It promotes diversity on the battlefield. For example do you want to load up an Atlas with more weapons and an std300 but be slow or go light on weapons in exchange for mobility with a std 360.

You would look on the field and see a fast moving Atlas or a Fast Centurian or a slow one and they all had character based on their build and it showed in how they moved and more importantly FELT playing them!

All the fricking mechs are gonna feel the same now. Gone is the fast battlemaster or the slow *** direwhale. They will feel the same. Dafuq? The Atlas was the less firepower but armoured and quick twisting striker and the direwhale was the dont get right in front of me or you die but slow as a barn door...and now they will move THE SAME? I dont inderstand how people are ok with this.

Wee need more character of mechs not less!

IMO they should just REDUCE the impact engine size has to mobility. Not decouple it entirely. Its such a cool and unique variable to the depth of the game in many respects i find it baffling that PGI dont know they have in their possesion a valuable gem and they are about to swap it for a bean.

Edited by l33tworks, 21 February 2017 - 01:51 AM.

[Cyrilis]

basically I am with you...
lets see how the real effect is on the PTS.

[l33tworks]

Cyrilis, on 21 February 2017 - 01:45 AM, said:

basically I am with you...
lets see how the real effect is on the PTS.

Its gonna feel exactly aa dull as you think it will feel. All the asaaults are gonna feel the the same. All the heavies are gonna feel the the same. All the mediums are gonna feel diffe....no the Same!

Gone is going to be the whole try new build...OH that feels different! moment.

[Karl Streiger]

well did i read the lines wrong but shouldn't the "mobility" be part of the chassis? - Phoenix Hawk with inherit more mobility as the Black Jack?????

So the Atlas could still be the mobile striker - but you might not need a 350-360 rated engine anymore to get the same twist range.

I think its the right step - depends on how its played out. Would really like to have the feeling back when Awesome and Atlas were the only assaults in the game -were you did need the extra mobility of the awesome to go successful into a 1on1 with an Atlas.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 21 February 2017 - 02:03 AM.

[l33tworks]

PGI should keep engine mobility and use it as a balancing me hanic between clan and IS. For example clans get 50% of the mobility boost they do now and IS get 75%. That way mecha are slower accross the board but system is not scrapped and Inner Sphere get yet another non lore breaking crutch

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Engine tied to mobility caused some major balance issues, especially when it came to bigger clan mechs due to their smaller engines, lighter gear and better+less restrictive endo+ferro.

But still, it was very logical. Having engines NOT impact mobility is kinda stupid. Plus, it may possibly turn the table completely, making the smaller engines better than the bigger ones.

A better solution (a compromise you could say) IMHO would be to limit the impact of the engines on mobility, but still leave SOME impact. Set up a baseline on stock engines (higher than now in most cases) and make better engines only give 50% bonuses to mobility in comparison to the current bonus

Simple example (not the best, just the math is easy): for Jagermech (65 tons), upgrading from stock engine (let's call it 100% mobility) gives about 1,5% bonus (100% at 260, 104% at 265, 108% at 270 etc). We could set up Jager mobility to be what now is 280 or something, but make engine rates to upgrade mobility only by 0,75%.
Something like that would make smaller engines be less bad, but would still make using bigger engines useful.

[El Bandito]

Nah, I want to see how decoupling twist speed works first hand. This will make Std engine actually a decent choice compared to bigger XL engine. Right now, big XL engine takes care of mobility, firepower, AND survivability thanks to faster twist/move speed. That should be addressed.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 February 2017 - 02:09 AM.

[occusoj]

l33tworks, on 21 February 2017 - 01:34 AM, said:

It promotes diversity on the battlefield. For example do you want to load up an Atlas with more weapons and an std300 but be slow or go light on weapons in exchange for mobility with a std 360.
...
All the fricking mechs are gonna feel the same now. Gone is the fast battlemaster or the slow *** direwhale.

Also gone is the Wubshee, it completely relies on twisting quickly to shield his STs containing vital parts of the deathtrap XL400 engine it uses. Removing the agility added by its huge engine renders it almost useless.
Its best days are long gone anyway and its far from OP, in QP its already very rare and I cant imagine its any better in FW.

One (of the many) builds less to be present on the battlefield for no sane reason.

Total detachement of agility from engine size is a terrible idea. Limiting it to a certain extent (probably even by chasis) would be worth a try but straight out 0% influence is just bad.

[l33tworks]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 21 February 2017 - 02:07 AM, said:

Engine tied to mobility caused some major balance issues, especially when it came to bigger clan mechs due to their smaller engines, lighter gear and better+less restrictive endo+ferro.

But still, it was very logical. Having engines NOT impact mobility is kinda stupid. Plus, it may possibly turn the table completely, making the smaller engines better than the bigger ones.

A better solution (a compromise you could say) IMHO would be to limit the impact of the engines on mobility, but still leave SOME impact. Set up a baseline on stock engines (higher than now in most cases) and make better engines only give 50% bonuses to mobility in comparison to the current bonus

Simple example (not the best, just the math is easy): for Jagermech (65 tons), upgrading from stock engine (let's call it 100% mobility) gives about 1,5% bonus (100% at 260, 104% at 265, 108% at 270 etc). We could set up Jager mobility to be what now is 280 or something, but make engine rates to upgrade mobility only by 0,75%.
Something like that would make smaller engines be less bad, but would still make using bigger engines useful.

Bro you could have just said you agree thats literally exactly what I said lol.

El Bandito, on 21 February 2017 - 02:08 AM, said:

Nah, I want to see how decoupling twist speed works first hand. This will make Std engine actually a decent choice compared to bigger XL engine. Right now, big XL engine takes care of mobility, firepower, AND survivability thanks to faster twist/move speed. That should be addressed.

Whats there to see? Its gonna be as tasty as chewing on marbles and ofcourse you wont get to see how it affects balance whatsoever because it will be on pts. You want it adressed. Sure give std engine more of a mobility boost compared to xl. Thats a sensible proposition. Scraping it entirely is just rudinculous imo. Its been one of the core pillars of balance and gameplay of MWO since day one you cant just DELETE that pillar without majour stuctural overhauls

[Prof RJ Gumby]

l33tworks, on 21 February 2017 - 02:24 AM, said:

Bro you could have just said you agree thats literally exactly what I said lol.

(...)

I started typing my post before you posted yours man.

EDIT1:

l33tworks, on 21 February 2017 - 02:24 AM, said:

Whats there to see? Its gonna be as tasty as chewing on marbles and ofcourse you wont get to see how it affects balance whatsoever because it will be on pts. You want it adressed. Sure give std engine more of a mobility boost compared to xl. Thats a sensible proposition. Scraping it entirely is just rudinculous imo. Its been one of the core pillars of balance and gameplay of MWO since day one you cant just DELETE that pillar without majour stuctural overhauls

I was always in favour of STDs improving survivability, i.e. giving structure bonuses. Seeing how damn heavy these engines are, they sure must've been built of some tough materials. Or at least dense ones.

EDIT2:

occusoj, on 21 February 2017 - 02:14 AM, said:

Also gone is the Wubshee, it completely relies on twisting quickly to shield his STs containing vital parts of the deathtrap XL400 engine it uses. Removing the agility added by its huge engine renders it almost useless.
Its best days are long gone anyway and its far from OP, in QP its already very rare and I cant imagine its any better in FW.
(...)

Seeing how the mobility would be locked to chassis, the Wubshee could switch to STD335 to stop dying from ST loss. The price would be 12km less speed and that locked torso twist rate (could be fast by default, who knows?). Would that work in such a changed environment? Dunno. We will have to check. Hopefully, PGI seems to listen to community feedback on that PTS very closely, so if this change sucks, they will probably backtrack from it quickly. I hope.

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 21 February 2017 - 02:51 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

El Bandito, on 21 February 2017 - 02:08 AM, said:

Nah, I want to see how decoupling twist speed works first hand. This will make Std engine actually a decent choice compared to bigger XL engine. Right now, big XL engine takes care of mobility, firepower, AND survivability thanks to faster twist/move speed. That should be addressed.

Totally with you on this one, I believe it's a step in the right direction towards tech balance in the long run. It doesn't remove the need for quirks, but it closes the gap a little bit on average and should make the job of quirk-balancing a little bit easier. Mechs will still need quirks and I certainly hope that PGI doesn't believe otherwise... but it kind of makes sense to try it on the PTS without any mobility quirks first to get a feel for the impact, then requirk where appropriate.

[El Bandito]

l33tworks, on 21 February 2017 - 02:24 AM, said:

Whats there to see? Its gonna be as tasty as chewing on marbles and ofcourse you wont get to see how it affects balance whatsoever because it will be on pts. You want it adressed. Sure give std engine more of a mobility boost compared to xl. Thats a sensible proposition. Scraping it entirely is just rudinculous imo. Its been one of the core pillars of balance and gameplay of MWO since day one you cant just DELETE that pillar without majour stuctural overhauls

1. That "pillar" is not as vital in my eyes for any change. I am fine with decoupling twist speed in PTS and eventually live servers, because I want to see less mobile mechs (they are 20-100 tons of metal constructs, after all).

2. I also disagree with giving Std engine more mobility as compensation, because as I said above, I don't want more mobile mechs. I want them to be less mobile, if anything.

3. This decoupling will no doubt nerf Heavies and Assaults the hardest, which is completely acceptable in my opinion. Lights and Mediums need any help they can get. And I say that as a dedicated Assault pilot.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 February 2017 - 02:56 AM.

[kapusta11]

My problem with it is that PGI tries to present it as a Clan vs IS balance fix.

Both Kodiak and Battlemaster use big engines and will end up being nerfed. Both Night Gyr and Warhammer use small engines and will be buffed.

Net gain balance wise: zero.

[Flutterguy]

kapusta11, on 21 February 2017 - 02:58 AM, said:

My problem with it is that PGI tries to present it as a Clan vs IS balance fix.

Both Kodiak and Battlemaster use big engines and will end up being nerfed. Both Night Gyr and Warhammer use small engines and will be buffed.

Net gain balance wise: zero.

It's effectively a buff to standard engines which only the IS commonly use. So technically it is a slight Clan vs IS balance fix, but we'll have to actually see how each individual chassis fairs before we can really pass judgment.

[Vellron2005]

As far as I understand it, mechs will have mobility built into the chassis, not the engine.. so a Battlemaster will always have it's own mobility, and an atlas it's own, regardless of engine size..

Engine size will make them go faster, but an atlas will still behave as an atlas..

This will make mechs more distinctive, no?

Why the uproar?

[SmokedJag]

Vellron2005, on 21 February 2017 - 03:11 AM, said:

As far as I understand it, mechs will have mobility built into the chassis, not the engine.. so a Battlemaster will always have it's own mobility, and an atlas it's own, regardless of engine size..

Engine size will make them go faster, but an atlas will still behave as an atlas..

This will make mechs more distinctive, no?

Why the uproar?

People not reading the line where mobility differences are still built into the chassis.

Or people driving Kodiaks I guess.

[occusoj]

Vellron2005, on 21 February 2017 - 03:11 AM, said:

As far as I understand it, mechs will have mobility built into the chassis, not the engine.. so a Battlemaster will always have it's own mobility, and an atlas it's own, regardless of engine size..

To quote the news article written by PGI:

Quote

Mobility will instead be determined by the overall tonnage of the chassis.

Not per chassis but per weight class.

For example, Stalker will be the same as Battlemaster.
Zeus the same as Victor and Awesome.

Prof RJ Gumby, on 21 February 2017 - 02:40 AM, said:

Seeing how the mobility would be locked to chassis, the Wubshee could switch to STD335 to stop dying from ST loss. The price would be 12km less speed and that locked torso twist rate (could be fast by default, who knows?).

I tried running it with a 340, not that great. Every kph of speed is vital once the team goes full nascar, 12 less makes it more dependent on teammates which more often than not is a huge disatvantage in QP. Also, it needs to engage and disengage quickly, it doesnt just depend on twist rate but also acceleration and decceleration.

Going by the history of this games balance it will probably be highly anemic anyway and not even able to shield its CT effectively.

[Alistair Winter]

l33tworks, on 21 February 2017 - 01:34 AM, said:

I remember thinking in 2013 how annoying it was that MWO was the first mechwarrior game to tie engine size to mobility. But I realise now its one of the things it carved its own path for the better! And now they are just about to toss it so carelessly

It promotes diversity on the battlefield. For example do you want to load up an Atlas with more weapons and an std300 but be slow or go light on weapons in exchange for mobility with a std 360.

You would look on the field and see a fast moving Atlas or a Fast Centurian or a slow one and they all had character based on their build and it showed in how they moved and more importantly FELT playing them!

All the fricking mechs are gonna feel the same now. Gone is the fast battlemaster or the slow *** direwhale. They will feel the same. Dafuq? The Atlas was the less firepower but armoured and quick twisting striker and the direwhale was the dont get right in front of me or you die but slow as a barn door...and now they will move THE SAME? I dont inderstand how people are ok with this.

Wee need more character of mechs not less!

IMO they should just REDUCE the impact engine size has to mobility. Not decouple it entirely. Its such a cool and unique variable to the depth of the game in many respects i find it baffling that PGI dont know they have in their possesion a valuable gem and they are about to swap it for a bean.

I think it's better to just decouple it, for the sake of simplicity. PGI has in their possession 1000 sailships of different sizes and capabilities, and they're going to trade it for a single supercargo ship. It may not be as versatile, but it solves a number of logistical issues. Trying to balance the relationship between engine size and mobility is going to be a lot harder unless you have a feel for both extremes (i.e. coupled and decoupled)

[Baulven]

Flutterguy, on 21 February 2017 - 03:04 AM, said:

It's effectively a buff to standard engines which only the IS commonly use. So technically it is a slight Clan vs IS balance fix, but we'll have to actually see how each individual chassis fairs before we can really pass judgment.

Since the mechs that can alter their engines will see the biggest buffs this primarily benefits IS, IIC models, and omnimechs that have low engines for their tonnage.

It also completely borks most of the mechs that are over engined (My FRIDGE!) particularly omnimechs that have no option to change them. Welcome to all the guns and the smallest engine that you can mount.

[Widowmaker1981]

You thought the Dire Wolf was too sluggish before? Gave the Highlanders nice agility quirks because they were too sluggish with a max size engine?

NO WORRIES!

Lets make every single f*cking assault handle like a Dire Wolf.

First change that might kill the game for me, depending on implementation i guess - i played two games in the Dire after the mega skill tree nerf before permanently shelving it for being far too uncomfortable to play...

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 21 February 2017 - 05:23 AM.