306 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

Doesn't all the hand wringing above all depend on the base line values PGI assigns to each mech/classs? And since we don't know there is no point in worrying about it. This is PGI, and I really don't mean this as an insult but based on history the following is what will occur here: They will start out by applying broad based formulas probably across techs and probably across all weight classes, in an effort to provide "balanced" agility performance. They will then spend the next several months if not years tweeking mechs to give them proper/better/distinctive/handi-capped/etc. agility quirks; in a process that can't possibly please everyone but will beat you down until you don't care anymore. See Kodiak balance, UAC balance, Gauss balance, ERLL balance, over all energy quirks balance efforts of the past two years for reference for how PGI applies changes to this game. Hurt everything largely to the same extent, then iteratively hurt some things more and some things less, until most of the community is indifferent to whatever the change was in the first place.

This is just how PGI does things and so no point it getting all bent about it. Engine decoupling is a change that a lot of folks have clamored for for a while, and though I am indifferent to it, I am all for it if it shakes things up for a bit. PGI is going to "ruin" some of your mechs with this. They will also make others "god-tier" at least in the short run. Over time though, they will "fix" things to the point where you no longer notice or no longer care what they did or why. Accept it, cuz its inevitable.

In this case for this "feature", I for once, am A-OKAY with PGI being PGI.

[J0anna]

All depends on the implementation, without seeing it, there's no way to judge it. It's probably going to be a nice boost for battlemechs over omnimechs since they can actually change their engines. It really comes down to what PGI thinks is "right" turn/twist speed per weight class. If they feel that a 70 ton mech should turn like a Summoner, I think most will be fine with it. If they feel like it should turn like a Dire Wolf, people will not play it, and you can effectively remove most Omnimechs from the game.

While I applaud PGI for trying this on the test server, I do have two concerns:

1) Without some incentive, we won't get enough players to properly test the feature in time. Thus the feature might not make the march date or the skill tree upgrade date might slip another month.

2) Or we get enough players, but there is so much feedback, that it must be significantly changed and again the march date slips.

While it's a very big change, and I do want to try it, I would be stunned to see anyone get I right (or even nearly right) on the first attempt.

[Widowmaker1981]

Dee Eight, on 21 February 2017 - 06:45 PM, said:

A lot of the OP's whinage seems contingent on the fact that this game diverged from the BT lore in the first place by ever having engine rating affect agility beyond the top speed of the mech. It never should have changed torso or arm pitch and yaw speeds. PGI is simply correcting that mistake they made in the past.

This is utter rubbish, sorry.

If by 'lore' you mean the books / novels, they never say anything about changing engine size changing agility or not, largely because changing engines isnt discussed as engines are seen as an integral part of the mech that cannot be changed. The closest it comes is saying that a mech is 'unusually agile for its size', generally about mechs with larger engines than is usual for the class.

If by 'lore' you mean tabletop rules, then 1) thats not lore, thats a ruleset from a totally different game medium, and 2) In TT, there is no agility. There is only movement points, and it costs 1 MP per hex facing changed, therefore by the only standard of agility that exists in the ruleset, agility absolutely IS coupled to engine size - a Timberwolf is 5/8 MP and is therefore more 'agile' than a Panther which is 4/6 MP. The current implementation is the most faithful interpretation of TT rules possible, actually. (In fact a Timberwolf is actually harder to hit than a Panther in TT, as size isnt an actual factor)

Now, you can certainly make an argument that large engines are too valuable at the moment in this game, and therefore uncoupling twist from engine size would be good for this game, and thats fine. But don't bring Lore into it, because 1) its not relevant and 2) It actually disagrees with your point even if it was relevant.

[MuonNeutrino]

Widowmaker1981, on 22 February 2017 - 05:04 AM, said:

This is utter rubbish, sorry.

If by 'lore' you mean tabletop rules...

One note - Dee Eight was actually specifically mentioning *torso* and *arm* movement speeds in his comment, which are things that don't even exist in tabletop. In tabletop, everything's torso moves exactly the same - one facing each, instantly - and everything's arms all have the same firing arcs and instant traverse. (Barring mechs with no upper actuators or the 'no twist' quirk anyway, but details.) To be *strictly* translating tabletop, engine size would affect *leg* turn speed, but shouldn't have anything to do with *torso* or *arm* movement.

[Excalibaard]

Fearmongering.

Assault mechs moving at 56 kph instead of 50 kph might not seem like much, but it's a 10% increase in speed and will definitely reduce the amount of time people will have to react once the lance starts charging.

I might have preferred to see it toned down to a lesser degree instead of completely removed, but the change philosophy is good. And of the mechs that you mentioned, they're also updating the innate mobility of certain mechs according to their profile. The mobile mechs will likely receive some advanced mobility tweaks (like higher torso yaw and pitch differs between mechs) in order to keep them relevant.

[Widowmaker1981]

MuonNeutrino, on 22 February 2017 - 06:24 AM, said:

One note - Dee Eight was actually specifically mentioning *torso* and *arm* movement speeds in his comment, which are things that don't even exist in tabletop. In tabletop, everything's torso moves exactly the same - one facing each, instantly - and everything's arms all have the same firing arcs and instant traverse. (Barring mechs with no upper actuators or the 'no twist' quirk anyway, but details.) To be *strictly* translating tabletop, engine size would affect *leg* turn speed, but shouldn't have anything to do with *torso* or *arm* movement.

Well, on THAT basis a 140 kph 35 tonner should have exactly the same twist speed as a 30 kph 100 tonner. (and literally no one in this entire game cares about arm speed, at all - it could be multiplied by 100000 and would have zero effect)

As i said, leave lore out of it. Its not relevant.

[0bsidion]

This is actually one change PGI has proposed that is actually somewhat logical. Mechs on the lighter end of the spectrum will be more agile while the heavier mechs will be less agile.

As far as picking engines goes, agility bonuses never really entered my decision making process to begin with. It was usually a combo of wanting a certain speed capability and whether I needed more space for my DHS to fit. After this change I'll still only give those two things any consideration.

[1453 R]

eyeballs, on 22 February 2017 - 03:25 AM, said:

I just want to outmaneuver assaults in my light mech. Right now, I cant, because they can turn and twist faster than I can run. With these changes, it sounds like maybe I'll be able to do that in the future. If that's the case, I'm in favor. If not, I'm probably not gonna stick around too much longer. It's tough enough being a below average skill light pilot as it is. With the coming skill tree chamges, it's gonna get a lot harder without something to compensate

0bsidion, on 22 February 2017 - 06:55 AM, said:

This is actually one change PGI has proposed that is actually somewhat logical. Mechs on the lighter end of the spectrum will be more agile while the heavier mechs will be less agile.

As far as picking engines goes, agility bonuses never really entered my decision making process to begin with. It was usually a combo of wanting a certain speed capability and whether I needed more space for my DHS to fit. After this change I'll still only give those two things any consideration.

Where are you guys getting this idea?

ALL 'Mechs are losing their engine-based mobility. All of them. At all weight ranges. Light 'mechs lose more overall proportional agility than assault 'Mechs do because light 'Mechs use proportionally larger engines than assaults do - they kick their engine way further up above stock levels, both absolutely and proportionally, because it's both easier for them to do so and more critical to their survival.

'Mechs on the lighter end of the scale are being hit harder by the complete loss of all engine agility, and I can absolutely flat-out guarantee you that whatever your favorite twigweight is, it's not going to be one of the small handful of randomly cherry-picked Gifted Ones to retain any of their pre-decoupling mobility. I would not be terribly surprised if the Phoenix Hawk was the only Inner Sphere medium 'Mech to retain any of its current mobility. Not all of its mobility, just some of it.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 February 2017 - 05:56 PM, said:

I wouldn't find it acceptable, but I don't see that happening since MW4 never had speed and agility directly linked like MWO does and speed was still important in that game (and no I'm not talking about the NH/UA/3PV BS that plagued MW4 servers). Keeping in mind not even accel, decel, or turn rate were directly tied to speed in that game.

Wintersdark, on 21 February 2017 - 08:04 PM, said:

No. I feel that's a VERY unlikely outcome, however, given the incredible impact speed has on maneuverability in combat.

With that said, you should probably quantify what you feel are "small engined mechs" and "large engined mechs"; as well, what qualifies as a "middle of the road" engine.

I think there's a very high probability that at least 1/3, probably as many as 1/2 or even a bit more may tend towards "midrange" engines - think 300 rated engines in a 65t heavy. I think there's a very strong probability that you won't see many 350-400 rated engines barring some laser boat assaults (but that's often the case now for >375 rated engines) but you'll ALSO see few <250 rated engines. 250-350 being the most common engines fielded between mediums to assaults seems pretty damn reasonable to me. Lights will likely *always* use the largest engines they can, at least in any serious builds.

I suspect you'll only find <300 rated engines on heavies in cases like the Jagermech and Rifleman, who want to maximize heavy ballistic usage as a rule of thumb.

And in older MechWarrior games with permanent fixed agility for all 'Mechs, I recall that heavy and assault 'Mechs were generally even more dominant than they are now.

Anyways. Both of you state that small engines being significantly more favorable than large ones is not an acceptable state of affairs, but that larger engines being significantly more favorable than smaller ones is also not acceptable. May I point out the very strong comp support for Prosperity's "15 tons of [X] should be better than 10 tons of [X]" threads? One would imagine that a 15t engine is supposed to be better than a 10t engine. That someone with the ability to take that 26.5t engine as opposed to the 12.5t one would be considered to have a vastly superior engine due to spending more than double the weight allotment on that engine.

In the game you two are describing, however, the 26.5t engine is supposed to be equivalent to the 12.5t engine. You're not supposed to derive any benefit from equipping the 26.5t engine that the 12.5t guy doesn't also have. You both are describing a game where the 12.5t engine is not actually considered inferior to the 26.5t engine.

If an engine that weighs only twelve tons is not inferior to an engine that weighs twenty-six tons, why on Earth would anyone take the twenty-six ton engine over the twelve-ton engine?

P.S.: 'Small' engines are those that produce a significantly lower mobility profile for a given weight tier than what is generally held to be the tier's norm. Highly weight class dependent, and even specific weight point dependent in the light bracket. I generally hold 'small' engines to be engines that cause the 'Mech they're installed in to move as if it was a weight class higher than the one it's in - medium-mobility lights, heavy-mobility mediums, and the like. 'Large' engines are those that sit on the other end of the curve and produce a higher-than-standard mobility profile (y'know, that thing we won't be able to do anymore no matter how much we try), and also overlap with current preferred engine selections for 'Mechs today.

Wintersdark, on 21 February 2017 - 08:04 PM, said:

See, you're making so many utterly bu****it assumptions here that it makes my head hurt. Just because people want to see this happen doesn't mean they don't like movement and maneuver in their battles. People don't want to drop 250 rated engines on their atlases.

What we DO want is small (and for that matter, more midrange) engines to be a more valid choice than they are right now. The tradeoffs to going smaller with your engine now are too steep. Decoupling agility reduces the loss in downgrading your engine.

You're assuming that everyone else is wants this bizarre "worst case scenario" you propose. Nobody wants that. Nobody is asking for that. I don't know where you're getting these things from, but I'm not seeing it in this thread from anyone but you.

In fact; if things ended up as you seem to think people want (massive agility nerfs across the board, essentially), I think 100% of players would be up in arms about that. Nobody wants all mechs to be lumbering, clumsy oafs, and there's indeed no reason for that to be the outcome.

I'm trying to understand why people want so very, tremendously badly for small engines to be such a highly desirable choice in the first place. Everybody's all "you mean I can put low-rated STDs in my Wah-Hammahs and not hate myself anymore? SWEET!" People are, as I said earlier, absolutely giddy with excitement over the prospect of potentially stripping twenty klicks off their builds without being outmaneuvered by people who don't do said stripping anymore.

That's exactly what all these replies read. "You mean I can strip my engine down, slice off a bunch of speed, but NOT lose any agility compared to people who didn't strip their engine down? Those guys still won't be able to outmaneuver me because I have every last speck of agility they do no matter what my engine is, but I can carry a bunch more stuff? Dude, sign me up!"

I'm trying to figure out why people are so all-fired fired up for the chance to start slicing their engines down to the bone, if it's not because they want to Gyr it up and be a giant bloated gunbag trying to vaporize Hunchbacks with one salvo.

Because I DON'T F***IN' GET IT! I don't know why people want to inflict this huge mobility penalty across the entire frickin' game, I don't know why medium and light pilots think they're going to be immune to the effects of not being able to derive any agility from their engine anymore I don't know why assault pilots who're desperate for every last inch of twist/second they can get are so thrilled with the idea of losing literally the only source of additional agility beyond their awful stock profiles and a bunch of SKilltree nodes worth less than the packets they come in on, and which everybody else gets MORE benefit from as it is.

But everyone keeps saying "Nah nah man, it'll be great! Just shut the f*** up for a while and watch it! This is gonna be awesome! We're gonna see so many lowball standard engines again, it's fantastic!"

WHY?!

[Cato Phoenix]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 February 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

If they decouple twist/turn thats one thing.. a thing i dont like but could accept, maybe, as long as it doesnt become horrible to play anything that has the temerity to be an assault mech.

But acceleration? You going to tell me that a vehicle with a bigger more powerful engine doesnt accelerate faster than an equal weight vehicle with a small puny engine? And since decel in this game is just slamming the engine into reverse.. same thing.

edit: and gameplay wise, leaving acc/dec in there means there is actual value to taking big engines.

I do agree with this change, I think accel/decel should be coupled, because that's logical.

Thus you have the engine giving you:
Speed
Acceleration
Deceleration

While the mech's base and skills gives you:
Turn rate
Torso Twist
Pitch speed
Arm speed

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 22 February 2017 - 07:30 AM, said:

And in older MechWarrior games with permanent fixed agility for all 'Mechs, I recall that heavy and assault 'Mechs were generally even more dominant than they are now.

That's because you here it from bad players who got punished by poptarts that jumped straight up and down (which would've gotten you murdered by ERLL death squads). That said don't conflate the reason those mechs were strong with agility because there were other reasons that was the case (cSPLs for example weren't the beast they are in this game).

[Greyhart]

Cato Phoenix, on 22 February 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

I do agree with this change, I think accel/decel should be coupled, because that's logical.

Thus you have the engine giving you:
Speed
Acceleration
Deceleration

While the mech's base and skills gives you:
Turn rate
Torso Twist
Pitch speed
Arm speed

really none of the engine size and speed thing makes much sense as I understand it. But then most of the stuff in Battle tech makes no sense when you think about it.

movement of a mech is by way of artificial muscles. Therefore I would assume that speed is about how quickly those muscles contract not how much energy is pumped into them. I would assume more energy would result in a harder contraction not a quicker one.

So I had always conceptualised the tonnage, crit space as not just the engine, weapon or ammo but also all the re-engineering that had to take place to make them work. so a new engine wouldn't just be the reactor but also an upgrade to the muscle fibers as well.

Frankly on this I think that it appears to be a sensible idea and has been broadly welcomed.

I would guess that most players have no idea that engines effect twist speed and won't notice the change beyond well the new skill tree has made this feel different.

[1453 R]

Greyhart, on 22 February 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

...
I would guess that most players have no idea that engines effect twist speed and won't notice the change beyond well the new skill tree has made this feel different.

People will notice that switching from a 250 to a 400 no longer produces any change in agility, when previously the change in agility was rather gargantuan.

Supposedly that's the point, but I still don't understand why everyone is so eager to be so slow, with absolutely no recourse to be faster.

[Widowmaker1981]

1453 R, on 22 February 2017 - 07:30 AM, said:

Where are you guys getting this idea?

ALL 'Mechs are losing their engine-based mobility. All of them. At all weight ranges. Light 'mechs lose more overall proportional agility than assault 'Mechs do because light 'Mechs use proportionally larger engines than assaults do - they kick their engine way further up above stock levels, both absolutely and proportionally, because it's both easier for them to do so and more critical to their survival.

'Mechs on the lighter end of the scale are being hit harder by the complete loss of all engine agility, and I can absolutely flat-out guarantee you that whatever your favorite twigweight is, it's not going to be one of the small handful of randomly cherry-picked Gifted Ones to retain any of their pre-decoupling mobility. I would not be terribly surprised if the Phoenix Hawk was the only Inner Sphere medium 'Mech to retain any of its current mobility. Not all of its mobility, just some of it.




And in older MechWarrior games with permanent fixed agility for all 'Mechs, I recall that heavy and assault 'Mechs were generally even more dominant than they are now.

Anyways. Both of you state that small engines being significantly more favorable than large ones is not an acceptable state of affairs, but that larger engines being significantly more favorable than smaller ones is also not acceptable. May I point out the very strong comp support for Prosperity's "15 tons of [X] should be better than 10 tons of [X]" threads? One would imagine that a 15t engine is supposed to be better than a 10t engine. That someone with the ability to take that 26.5t engine as opposed to the 12.5t one would be considered to have a vastly superior engine due to spending more than double the weight allotment on that engine.

In the game you two are describing, however, the 26.5t engine is supposed to be equivalent to the 12.5t engine. You're not supposed to derive any benefit from equipping the 26.5t engine that the 12.5t guy doesn't also have. You both are describing a game where the 12.5t engine is not actually considered inferior to the 26.5t engine.

If an engine that weighs only twelve tons is not inferior to an engine that weighs twenty-six tons, why on Earth would anyone take the twenty-six ton engine over the twelve-ton engine?

P.S.: 'Small' engines are those that produce a significantly lower mobility profile for a given weight tier than what is generally held to be the tier's norm. Highly weight class dependent, and even specific weight point dependent in the light bracket. I generally hold 'small' engines to be engines that cause the 'Mech they're installed in to move as if it was a weight class higher than the one it's in - medium-mobility lights, heavy-mobility mediums, and the like. 'Large' engines are those that sit on the other end of the curve and produce a higher-than-standard mobility profile (y'know, that thing we won't be able to do anymore no matter how much we try), and also overlap with current preferred engine selections for 'Mechs today.




I'm trying to understand why people want so very, tremendously badly for small engines to be such a highly desirable choice in the first place. Everybody's all "you mean I can put low-rated STDs in my Wah-Hammahs and not hate myself anymore? SWEET!" People are, as I said earlier, absolutely giddy with excitement over the prospect of potentially stripping twenty klicks off their builds without being outmaneuvered by people who don't do said stripping anymore.

That's exactly what all these replies read. "You mean I can strip my engine down, slice off a bunch of speed, but NOT lose any agility compared to people who didn't strip their engine down? Those guys still won't be able to outmaneuver me because I have every last speck of agility they do no matter what my engine is, but I can carry a bunch more stuff? Dude, sign me up!"

I'm trying to figure out why people are so all-fired fired up for the chance to start slicing their engines down to the bone, if it's not because they want to Gyr it up and be a giant bloated gunbag trying to vaporize Hunchbacks with one salvo.

Because I DON'T F***IN' GET IT! I don't know why people want to inflict this huge mobility penalty across the entire frickin' game, I don't know why medium and light pilots think they're going to be immune to the effects of not being able to derive any agility from their engine anymore I don't know why assault pilots who're desperate for every last inch of twist/second they can get are so thrilled with the idea of losing literally the only source of additional agility beyond their awful stock profiles and a bunch of SKilltree nodes worth less than the packets they come in on, and which everybody else gets MORE benefit from as it is.

But everyone keeps saying "Nah nah man, it'll be great! Just shut the f*** up for a while and watch it! This is gonna be awesome! We're gonna see so many lowball standard engines again, it's fantastic!"

WHY?!

Your hyperbole dude, its out of control.

People believe, that PGI will set baselines for lights and mediums that are sufficiently fast that its not a problem for them, but that heavies and assaults will be slowed down to the point where those smaller mechs actually have a decent chance in a hypothetical evenly skilled 1v1.

Now personally i think that lights and mediums WILL retain enough baseline agility that playing them wont be uncomfortable, but that trying to make them able to take on the heavier mechs 1v1 in above hypothetical is a fools errand. By the nature of this game, the power of lighter mechs is in an inverse relationship with the skill level of the match. Its a bit like LRMs in that respect.. bad players will just miss the small fast targets constantly, shut themselves down and not notice being shot in the back and feel that lights are OP, where the high end players actually consistently hit the light mechs and make them explode (its just the nature of avoidance vs absorbtion tanking).So, making light mechs compete at the highest level of play by reducing the ability of heavy mechs to hit them so far that even the best struggle to hit them, makes them almost godmode in low tiers, and thats bad. (as another point, PGI need to make up their mind. IF all weight classes are equal in overall combat power and tonnage is effectively not relevant to power, then there should be no tonnage limits in games - if its just preference, then allow people to play what they prefer. If you are making tonnage = opportunity cost a la group queue and FP, then it needs to mean power)

[xe N on]

Good change. As a medium pilot I completely agree with untying the engine rating from the mobility.

If the mobility is set correctly, overall gameplay will profit:

- STD-engines will become more interesting for IS in all weight classes
- Heavies cannot simply equip large engines and gain the same mobility as a medium mech with less firepower and less armor
- Huge boost to Omnimechs like Adder, Kit Fox and Dire Wolf.


Bad things is, that mobility is only based on weight class. So a 80 ton Victor will have the same mobility as a 100 ton Kodiak. Not fair. That pushes the heaviest mechs in one weight class.

[1453 R]

Widowmaker1981, on 22 February 2017 - 09:28 AM, said:

Your hyperbole dude, its out of control.

People believe, that PGI will set baselines for lights and mediums that are sufficiently fast that its not a problem for them, but that heavies and assaults will be slowed down to the point where those smaller mechs actually have a decent chance in a hypothetical evenly skilled 1v1.

And I see no evidence for those beliefs to be warranted, any more than other folks see evidence of Piranha being Piranha. This idea folks have that lights and mediums will be totally unaffected by this change is ridiculous. Piranha does not do things only to effectively undo them at the same time for twice the work. They're not going to do this weird magical thing where they remove engine rating from mobility profiles, but then set all medium and light 'Mechs to have mobility profiles sufficient that nobody in those weight brackets notices whilst ensuring that heavy and assault drivers are all shackled to the Dire Whale Golden Poop Standard.

People keep treating this as some sort of insane Great Rebalance where everything will be awesome, when it's nothing of the sort. It's Piranha giving everyone what a handful of ultracomps want, and people being convinced their stuff will be much better off than it actually will be. All those Wah-Hammah drivers who're slobbering over the thought of getting 350XL mobility out of a 240STD are going to be quite rudely jarred out of their pipe dream when they find out it goes the other way - that they get 240STD mobility, even when loading a 350XL (assuming that was possible).

All this "quit making so many unfounded assumptions!" junk? YOU FIRST, BRUHS. Does no one remember the Rescale? All those "we'll requirk everything to make it better once we establish a formulaic baseline for balance!", and the fact that the formulaic baseline was established followed by none of the promised quirking?

Why the hell does anyone think the 'aggressive quirking' is going to be any more actually-there this time?

[0bsidion]

1453 R, on 22 February 2017 - 09:41 AM, said:

And I see no evidence for those beliefs to be warranted, any more than other folks see evidence of Piranha being Piranha. This idea folks have that lights and mediums will be totally unaffected by this change is ridiculous. Piranha does not do things only to effectively undo them at the same time for twice the work. They're not going to do this weird magical thing where they remove engine rating from mobility profiles, but then set all medium and light 'Mechs to have mobility profiles sufficient that nobody in those weight brackets notices whilst ensuring that heavy and assault drivers are all shackled to the Dire Whale Golden Poop Standard.

People keep treating this as some sort of insane Great Rebalance where everything will be awesome, when it's nothing of the sort. It's Piranha giving everyone what a handful of ultracomps want, and people being convinced their stuff will be much better off than it actually will be. All those Wah-Hammah drivers who're slobbering over the thought of getting 350XL mobility out of a 240STD are going to be quite rudely jarred out of their pipe dream when they find out it goes the other way - that they get 240STD mobility, even when loading a 350XL (assuming that was possible).

All this "quit making so many unfounded assumptions!" junk? YOU FIRST, BRUHS. Does no one remember the Rescale? All those "we'll requirk everything to make it better once we establish a formulaic baseline for balance!", and the fact that the formulaic baseline was established followed by none of the promised quirking?

Why the hell does anyone think the 'aggressive quirking' is going to be any more actually-there this time?

I guess you missed this:
"With the above issues in mind, we intend to break baseline Mobility characteristics away from Engines. Mobility will instead be determined by the overall tonnage of the chassis. It’s important to note that this will not affect the speed of a ‘Mech, which will remain tied with Engine size."

That quote is from the info PGI posted on this site, follow that link if you want the whole story. So yes, lighter mechs will be more agile, heavier mechs will be less agile, based on their tonnage. This makes a lot of sense to me, personally, as I said before.

Finally, I'd say test things out on PTS, that's what it's there for. I'm sure if enough people test it and a majority say it's unbalanced, they'll be willing make adjustments. They were willing to do some rework on the skill tree after all.

Edited by 0bsidion, 22 February 2017 - 09:57 AM.

[JC Daxion]

Bud Crue, on 22 February 2017 - 04:11 AM, said:

Doesn't all the hand wringing above all depend on the base line values PGI assigns to each mech/classs? And since we don't know there is no point in worrying about it. This is PGI, and I really don't mean this as an insult but based on history the following is what will occur here: They will start out by applying broad based formulas probably across techs and probably across all weight classes, in an effort to provide "balanced" agility performance. They will then spend the next several months if not years tweeking mechs to give them proper/better/distinctive/handi-capped/etc. agility quirks; in a process that can't possibly please everyone but will beat you down until you don't care anymore. See Kodiak balance, UAC balance, Gauss balance, ERLL balance, over all energy quirks balance efforts of the past two years for reference for how PGI applies changes to this game. Hurt everything largely to the same extent, then iteratively hurt some things more and some things less, until most of the community is indifferent to whatever the change was in the first place.

How is this a bad thing? Most online games balance for years.. and i mean years.. Take starcraft.. How long has that game been being tweaked, i think going on 8 years of patches and changes now? I played Online MMO's that were tweaked and changed for 5-8-10+ years.. heck some that last even longer.. Every patch that Dota has, is "the worst thing ever" My buddy laughs about it as he loves the game, and i would have to agree as his steam /played number is closing in on 4k hours. Some folks can't stand change.. Others roll with the punches and adapt

This is not a PGI think.. It's an online game thing..

But be serious, the game has far more mechs, and far more viable options than it did when i started.. and than it did when clan wars hit.. and than it did when quirks hit.. or even after.. Granted the number of mechs we have are a lot more.. But tons of mechs that just were bad, are now viable mechs, that at one point were nothing but a bad mech. But this game i don't think every mech will be equal.. but i also don't think they should be..

But in the end if all 55 ton mechs played and feel different.. then i think this will be a huge success.. (and i don't mean 55 ton mechs only, i just am saying at a weight.

[JC Daxion]

1453 R, on 22 February 2017 - 09:41 AM, said:

All those Wah-Hammah drivers who're slobbering over the thought of getting 350XL mobility out of a 240STD are going to be quite rudely jarred out of their pipe dream when they find out it goes the other way - that they get 240STD mobility, even when loading a 350XL (assuming that was possible).

I certanly hope this is kinda the case.. Though not sure i would say that they should be 240... But yes... I think mechs should be set at a point that some, installing a larger engine does not turn a mech into something super mobile.. and i also think droping to something much lower should not make it barely turn.

This is a huge area of balance that i think could really help the game as a whole. Making mechs that are suppose to live on agility do so.. (take a dragon) verse something that is more about tanking and firepower.. like a cataphract. If it does that. then it will be a huge success.. and yea i'll bet some comp meta will change, just like it will change at any change made to the game.

[Widowmaker1981]

1453 R, on 22 February 2017 - 09:41 AM, said:

And I see no evidence for those beliefs to be warranted, any more than other folks see evidence of Piranha being Piranha. This idea folks have that lights and mediums will be totally unaffected by this change is ridiculous. Piranha does not do things only to effectively undo them at the same time for twice the work. They're not going to do this weird magical thing where they remove engine rating from mobility profiles, but then set all medium and light 'Mechs to have mobility profiles sufficient that nobody in those weight brackets notices whilst ensuring that heavy and assault drivers are all shackled to the Dire Whale Golden Poop Standard.

People keep treating this as some sort of insane Great Rebalance where everything will be awesome, when it's nothing of the sort. It's Piranha giving everyone what a handful of ultracomps want, and people being convinced their stuff will be much better off than it actually will be. All those Wah-Hammah drivers who're slobbering over the thought of getting 350XL mobility out of a 240STD are going to be quite rudely jarred out of their pipe dream when they find out it goes the other way - that they get 240STD mobility, even when loading a 350XL (assuming that was possible).

All this "quit making so many unfounded assumptions!" junk? YOU FIRST, BRUHS. Does no one remember the Rescale? All those "we'll requirk everything to make it better once we establish a formulaic baseline for balance!", and the fact that the formulaic baseline was established followed by none of the promised quirking?

Why the hell does anyone think the 'aggressive quirking' is going to be any more actually-there this time?

I just dont find that even the mediocre engined mediums and lights like the Panthers / Adders etc have any problem with twist speed whatsoever, only the worst ones (mediums limited to mid 80s) are at all sluggish - and i really dont think they are going to set the mobility bar lower than those.. because if they do everyone will go apesh!t.

to be honest, i think the sensible, obvious way to do it is to base all mechs agility around stock engine baseline agility, and then give bonuses to mechs that need it (3/5 IS assaults and heavies, most IS lights and mediums) and .. nerf the Kodiak and Night Gyr by giving them below stock agility. Would actually even out a lot of stuff - the Huntsman would suddenly be a sensible alternative to the HBK-IIC - fixed gear etc vs 4/6 level agility.

Edit: that does of course lead to the problem of mechs that come with large engines getting to be more agile even if they ditch them for big guns.....

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 22 February 2017 - 10:18 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Widowmaker1981, on 22 February 2017 - 10:15 AM, said:

to be honest, i think the sensible, obvious way to do it is to base all mechs agility around stock engine baseline agility

It wouldn't be sensible since most IS mechs have much lower stock engines than almost every single Clan mech. It makes MORE sense to start with a baseline for each weight (all 75 tonners should have the same baseline) and then adjust from there based on the performance of those mechs (so Night Gyrs should be below the baseline because they perform strong, while Linebackers should be above the baseline for 65 tonners, etc).

There should be nothing about these baselines that have anything to do with stock loadouts.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 February 2017 - 10:56 AM.