306 replies to this topic

[Mawai]

WarHippy, on 21 February 2017 - 08:44 AM, said:

You just need to accept that there is a contingent of players here that want everyone to only play lights and mediums(because reasons) and they feel the best solution is to make heavies and assaults unbearably frustrating to play. Then there is another group(with some crossover from the first group) that feels the best simulation experience entails cement boots, sandbags tied to their arms, and poor performance.

Lol. I couldn't resist commenting since your statement is so full of exaggeration and angst it is hilarious.

1) Most folks don't care in the slightest what you play whether it is light or assault. Many folks DO want ALL mech classes to be viable so if you are expecting an assault to always stomp a light then think again. If a light mech can use its mobility advantage to kill an assault ... so be it. The assault should not be standing by themselves in the first place since the only way a light will kill it is if the assault doesn't have a wing man.

2) There are quite a few mechs that are BETTER than others due to large engine mobility advantages. Timberwolf is one of the great examples. With the 375XL engine and the current game mechanics that mech is amazingly maneuverable and due to the lighter tonnage and crit slots of clan weapons/endo/ferro it carries a significant loadout in addition to the maneuverability allowing it to perform better than most if not all IS mechs and many mechs with greater tonnage. The engine mobility change will reduce the inherent advantages of large engines so that maybe there will be a reason to use either STD engines or at least mix things up.

3) Nothing is final yet. Each mech has a base mobility profile which may be different. In addition, maybe they will decide after testing that removing the engine mod entirely is too big a change. Perhaps they will make the mobility modification due to the engine 25% of its previous value leaving the speed cap alone. Who knows ... I don't and probably PGI doesn't either at this point.

4) I play everything from lights to assaults. My 300 STD equipped Atlas feels slow and heavy ... BUT that is the way I think it should feel ... it is a 100 ton assault with lots of armor and decent weapons. In my opinion, the Atlas should not feel like my 65 ton Catapult with a 300XL and jump jets. On the other hand, there are some very sprightly large XL engine assaults that move like heavies or even mediums. Yes ... there are some folks who really like to dance around in assaults and heavies equipped with large engines ... but in some cases these are arguably too mobile especially when equipped with clan XL engines that offer the mobility without the risk associated with IS XL engines.

Anyway, the bottom line in my opinion is wait and see how things play and feel after they put the changes on test and eventually live. I think they need to make changes like this for the longer term health and balance of the game and one of the worst things PGI could do would be to either ignore the feedback entirely or take too much of the negative feedback to heart and not make the changes needed.

[WarHippy]

Appuagab, on 22 February 2017 - 06:10 PM, said:

I want to play mediums but most of them feel totally unplayable to me because heavies are just as mobile and carry more weapons and armor. Heavies are actual mediums of MWO and I think that's pretty wrong. I play mostly heavies (and agile assaults) and I'm tired of this meta. I thinks that this new change to engines is going to be a great thing.

Wintersdark, on 22 February 2017 - 06:14 PM, said:

I certainly don't want to see Heavies and Assaults be awful to play (I'm an Assault pilot!!), but fundamentally:

Mediums have less armor, the same speed (and thus currently the same agility), and less firepower. Their only advantage is being a little bit smaller.

Heavies SHOULD be somewhat less agile than Mediums, and Assaults should be less agile than Heavies. This doesn't mean that Assaults and Heavies need to be terrifically nerfed, but it does mean that the new baseline values should take this into consideration. I'd be quite happy if Mediums had much higher agility than they do now, getting them a good mobility advantage vs. Heavies.

If this isn't the case, then what do Mediums have going for them?

Personally, I rather enjoy mediums currently. I tend to play mostly mediums and assaults, and occasionally lights and heavies. I'm all for making lights and mediums better I just don't want it at the cost of functionality on heavier mechs. These changes may work out, but I suspect they are going to be a real pain with little in the way of actual improvement to the problems people are having.

Mawai, on 23 February 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

Lol. I couldn't resist commenting since your statement is so full of exaggeration and angst it is hilarious.

1) Most folks don't care in the slightest what you play whether it is light or assault. Many folks DO want ALL mech classes to be viable so if you are expecting an assault to always stomp a light then think again. If a light mech can use its mobility advantage to kill an assault ... so be it. The assault should not be standing by themselves in the first place since the only way a light will kill it is if the assault doesn't have a wing man.

Seeing as I have literally had people in some of these threads proclaim that they were excited about these changes specifically because it will cause people to stop playing heavies and assaults I'm going to say you are wrong because people clearly do care what others are playing. I have no problem with lights being able to kill assaults, or all mechs being viable. What I have a problem with is how they are trying to achieve it. My concern is with how playable(enjoyable/viable) heavier mechs are going to be with this change.

Mawai, on 23 February 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

2) There are quite a few mechs that are BETTER than others due to large engine mobility advantages. Timberwolf is one of the great examples. With the 375XL engine and the current game mechanics that mech is amazingly maneuverable and due to the lighter tonnage and crit slots of clan weapons/endo/ferro it carries a significant loadout in addition to the maneuverability allowing it to perform better than most if not all IS mechs and many mechs with greater tonnage. The engine mobility change will reduce the inherent advantages of large engines so that maybe there will be a reason to use either STD engines or at least mix things up.

Yes, that is true however this change doesn't address the Timber Wolf it hits every mech in its weight class in the same way. The Timber Wolf is still going to be better than most in its class of mech. All this change seems likely to do is kill the patient in an attempt to cure the disease.

Mawai, on 23 February 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

3) Nothing is final yet. Each mech has a base mobility profile which may be different. In addition, maybe they will decide after testing that removing the engine mod entirely is too big a change. Perhaps they will make the mobility modification due to the engine 25% of its previous value leaving the speed cap alone. Who knows ... I don't and probably PGI doesn't either at this point.

Agreed, it might change, or it might not as we have a rather vocal group of people here salivating over this change which is why I said what I said. I'm willing to try it out I just have a lot of concerns about it being this miracle fix that some seem to think it will be.

Mawai, on 23 February 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

4) I play everything from lights to assaults. My 300 STD equipped Atlas feels slow and heavy ... BUT that is the way I think it should feel ... it is a 100 ton assault with lots of armor and decent weapons. In my opinion, the Atlas should not feel like my 65 ton Catapult with a 300XL and jump jets. On the other hand, there are some very sprightly large XL engine assaults that move like heavies or even mediums. Yes ... there are some folks who really like to dance around in assaults and heavies equipped with large engines ... but in some cases these are arguably too mobile especially when equipped with clan XL engines that offer the mobility without the risk associated with IS XL engines.

It all comes down to personal preference. I also like my 300 Std equipped Atlas, but I also like my assault mechs that have larger engines as well. I use them in different ways and for different objectives, but with these changes I'm worried they are all going to end up feeling like the 300 Std Atlas.

Mawai, on 23 February 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

Anyway, the bottom line in my opinion is wait and see how things play and feel after they put the changes on test and eventually live. I think they need to make changes like this for the longer term health and balance of the game and one of the worst things PGI could do would be to either ignore the feedback entirely or take too much of the negative feedback to heart and not make the changes needed.

Like I said I am more than willing to give it a shot, but I have a lot of doubts it will be anything more than a disappointment for everyone.

[L3mming2]

MacClearly, on 21 February 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

The excitement is because a 55 ton mech is going to twist and turn well even if it has a lower engine rating. It will have a 55 ton mech maneuverability profile. So you won't need to sacrifice firepower for being able to move and turn. You will just get more speed with a bigger engine. This makes a lot of sense. Engines in cars (you brought up the analogy) are not what makes the car turn better.

You seem to allude that all mechs are going to be less maneuverable, which is not the case. All will be able to change their mobility in the skill tree to improve but at the cost of reducing other areas.

The main thing PGI appears to be doing is also balance. They say as much. So an IS mech will not be completely out twisted and turned by a Clan mech of equal tonnage because of engine size. That sounds like a very good change.

engines in cars is a horible analogy.. engines in tanks however... and a bigger engine in a tank will make it pivot faster..

[Wintersdark]

WarHippy, on 23 February 2017 - 07:40 AM, said:

Seeing as I have literally had people in some of these threads proclaim that they were excited about these changes specifically because it will cause people to stop playing heavies and assaults I'm going to say you are wrong because people clearly do care what others are playing. I have no problem with lights being able to kill assaults, or all mechs being viable. What I have a problem with is how they are trying to achieve it. My concern is with how playable(enjoyable/viable) heavier mechs are going to be with this change.

Be careful about how you interpret that.

A lot of people are bothered that queues are (and, incidentally, have always been) heavily weighted to Heavies. It's not that people want to see players simply stop playing heavies, but rather that they want to see Lights and Mediums as a more viable choice in MWO.

Yes, you can play them now, and you can be successful, but they are and have always been as weight classes strictly inferior to Heavies. This has been blatantly obvious from the very early days of MWO.

And again, I'm not on a "SMASH THE HEAVIES!" soapbox here. I agree that there is a danger of baseline profiles being too heavily nerfed; and that people need to test and give feedback - PGI is clearly listening to feedback this time around, so that's a thing.

But Mediums in particular need something they're good at, as a weight class, because there isn't anything right now. That's not up for debate: While a couple mediums are decent or even good, most are just "compared to other mediums". And the large part of that is the uphill battle Mediums as a class face: The same mobility as Heavies, less armor, less firepower.

Quote

Yes, that is true however this change doesn't address the Timber Wolf it hits every mech in its weight class in the same way. The Timber Wolf is still going to be better than most in its class of mech. All this change seems likely to do is kill the patient in an attempt to cure the disease.

Well, no. This depends on where the baseline is. Again, if the baseline is too low (See: 1453 R's speculation) and ALL mechs have a big agility nerf, then yeah, that's bad.

But lets say the Heavy mobility range is based around a "live game skilled" 70kph Heavy as the base (BEFORE new pilot skills) agility. The Timberwolf loses agility as does any heavy that's currently tooling around at Medium speeds [see above; where Heavies that move as fast or faster than Mediums, are thus as agile as mediums, while still carrying more firepower and armor]. But it's still only a mild nerf. A 70kph heavy is not clumsy. Skills can prop it up or you could elect to put those skill points somewhere else instead, because even on it's own a "current game skilled 70kph heavy" is perfectly usable.

Then push Medium agility up to the 90kph range, so they generally gain a bit of agility over today, and maintain that if they don't push for high ground speed. Then a slower Medium is still twisty and turny, because it's a medium, and that's what they do.

---

Again, saying "If the baseline is too low, that could be bad" is totally a valid concern. Badly tuned systems are badly tuned. It's important to be aware of the dangers, TEST, and give feedback on this.

But that does not in any way reflect on the viability of the system, just on the tuning of it. For those saying it shouldn't happen because they fear it'll be poorly tuned, that's exactly the same as saying MWO should never add new equipment, because it may be poorly tuned.

After all, if they add [New Weapon System] and they're just way too good? That's as valid a fear, but is no reason not to consider adding them. Just needs to be balanced.

---

People need to separate the functionality of a feature from the (tunable) balance of a feature; particularly when we don't know where the balance tuning ***** are going to be yet.

Edited by Wintersdark, 23 February 2017 - 04:01 PM.

[Wintersdark]

L3mming2, on 23 February 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

engines in cars is a horible analogy.. engines in tanks however... and a bigger engine in a tank will make it pivot faster..

I'm not a tank guy, but are tank turrets geared directly to the engine? Or are they simply electric or hydraulic? I'm going to bet that tank turret speed is pretty much completely independent of the speed of the engine.

[Morggo]

Not to mention that particular tank analogy is likewise horrible.. our mechs are on legs, not treads. It's the fact they are tracks moving opposite or one locked one moving, etc (fill in appropriate tank turning mechanics here).. so yeah, on tracks I can see engine power impacting the turn rate of a tank. Doesn't apply to legs in my mind.

[Dee Eight]

Also few tanks ever received bigger rated engines without also getting more armor and firepower also, thus rendering the horsepower increases pivot speed argument rather moot.

[Y E O N N E]

Morggo, on 23 February 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

Not to mention that particular tank analogy is likewise horrible.. our mechs are on legs, not treads. It's the fact they are tracks moving opposite or one locked one moving, etc (fill in appropriate tank turning mechanics here).. so yeah, on tracks I can see engine power impacting the turn rate of a tank. Doesn't apply to legs in my mind.

There's a fundamental problem with the description of BattleTech's myomer, and it's that it has a fixed strength per strand regardless applied current. Ostensibly, a bigger engine has more output it can dedicate to driving the myomer, and thus increase your run speed. Well, how does it do this if more current doesn't do anything? Supposedly, activating more fibers is how you get increased strength, but that implies that a 'Mech is inherently constructed with more fibers than it can use...which is completely and totally asinine.

That said, increasing the strength of muscles either increases the amount of mass you can move at a fixed rate or increases the rate you can move a fixed amount of mass. That means faster and/or harder leg swings and that translates into greater acceleration, more rapid turns, and higher top speed. It's not weird or inconceivable. Hell, I don't know if the upper torso is using myomer or hydraulic/electric motors to turn, either. Seems like it should be myomers.

[50 50]

Let's face it guys.
Putting a bigger engine in a mech is not about turning or twisting.
It's about speed.
Hot, bad *** speed.

Edited by 50 50, 23 February 2017 - 10:56 PM.

[NeoCodex]

I don't understand the OP. Why is this a nerf to victors and Dragons? 80 tonners will be the most maneuverable in the assault category, same for Dragons in theirs.

Hooray for trench warfare? I want to try something new, see how this shakes things up..

[1453 R]

Yeonne Greene, on 23 February 2017 - 10:38 PM, said:

There's a fundamental problem with the description of BattleTech's myomer, and it's that it has a fixed strength per strand regardless applied current. Ostensibly, a bigger engine has more output it can dedicate to driving the myomer, and thus increase your run speed. Well, how does it do this if more current doesn't do anything? Supposedly, activating more fibers is how you get increased strength, but that implies that a 'Mech is inherently constructed with more fibers than it can use...which is completely and totally asinine.

That said, increasing the strength of muscles either increases the amount of mass you can move at a fixed rate or increases the rate you can move a fixed amount of mass. That means faster and/or harder leg swings and that translates into greater acceleration, more rapid turns, and higher top speed. It's not weird or inconceivable. Hell, I don't know if the upper torso is using myomer or hydraulic/electric motors to turn, either. Seems like it should be myomers.

BattleMech mobility systems in general make no sense. The canon refers to both powered servos and myomer being used to move the 'Mech, but those two things both do the exact same job. A myomer network should eliminate the need for bulky, difficult to maintain and easily-damaged servos, while a servo system should eliminate the need for space-intensive myomer. Using both just complicates things for no real benefit.

Anyways.

Real-life arguments never work out properly in BattleTech anyways. Let the myoservos do their thing - or rather, our thing. If we're going to eliminate any/all ability to customize our 'Mech's movement systems/mobility profile with this ridiculous engine thing, I'd like a reasonable justification for that decision from Piranha. I'd also like to know the chances and priority on proper internal systems customization. If HBS can do it on Kickstarter money and pocket lint, I feel like Piranha could find a way. Yeah, it'd be glacially slow and rife with issues, but c'mon, guys.

The ability to take a horrifyingly bad stock 'Mech (JagerMechs, anyone?) and turn it into something that isn't outright shameful to pilot is a hallmark of the MechWarrior series. Why're we trying to put a stop to that again?

[Dee Eight]

Wintersdark, on 23 February 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

I'm not a tank guy, but are tank turrets geared directly to the engine? Or are they simply electric or hydraulic? I'm going to bet that tank turret speed is pretty much completely independent of the speed of the engine.

They're not. Independently powered via hand crank wheels, electric drive motors, or hydraulic pumps.

[Rogue Jedi]

^{in response to the thread title and the OP}
I have to ask, seriously?

even if engine rating no longer affects twisting, turning or arm speed do you realy want to be moving at 51 kph in an Atlas, or 55 in a marauder?

those speeds are way to slow (for me at least).
moving at 40-60 is rather slow and not ideal for tactical positioning and would give those slow Battmemechs a serious disadvantage against the Clan Omnimechs who would be able to dictate firing range to negate any firepower advantage the Battlemechs may gain by being stupidly slow.

some people may be happy to pilot a turret but many are not, so I do not think 255 is suficent for anything over 65 tons, it is bairly acceptable for the Jagermech if running a long range build, even 50 tonners usualy get a 275+ if I am piloting them.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 24 February 2017 - 08:03 AM, said:

If we're going to eliminate any/all ability to customize our 'Mech's movement systems/mobility profile with this ridiculous engine thing, I'd like a reasonable justification for that decision from Piranha.

To get you to use different mechs, I was dead serious about the select mech button.

1453 R, on 24 February 2017 - 08:03 AM, said:

The ability to take a horrifyingly bad stock 'Mech (JagerMechs, anyone?) and turn it into something that isn't outright shameful to pilot is a hallmark of the MechWarrior series. Why're we trying to put a stop to that again?

Wait, where do you get the idea that somehow this is hampering customization TO THAT level. Not even comparable situations, again one of many misrepresentations you use too often.

[Y E O N N E]

1453 R, on 24 February 2017 - 08:03 AM, said:

Real-life arguments never work out properly in BattleTech anyways.\

Sure they do, after you forcefully gag grognards and lock them in the basement so that the damn franchise can finally get updated for the 21st century.

Quote

The ability to take a horrifyingly bad stock 'Mech (JagerMechs, anyone?) and turn it into something that isn't outright shameful to pilot is a hallmark of the MechWarrior series. Why're we trying to put a stop to that again?

Since when was everything dependent on agility? If it has extremely good firepower quirks, why would it also need agility quirks? Hell, the Kodiak 3 isn't strictly fast or agile; it does what it does because it is fast and agile enough on top of having unmatched firepower and hard-point placement.

You have grossly insufficient information to work with here to be as up in arms as you are. You have no idea where PGI will set the baseline for each specific weight, you have no idea what quirks are going where, you have no idea what new equipment is going to be added to the game here in four months, you have no idea what other mechanics PGI has planned for engines. You don't even know what the skill tree is going to look like at launch.

[1453 R]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 February 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

...
You have grossly insufficient information to work with here to be as up in arms as you are. You have no idea where PGI will set the baseline for each specific weight, you have no idea what quirks are going where, you have no idea what new equipment is going to be added to the game here in four months, you have no idea what other mechanics PGI has planned for engines. You don't even know what the skill tree is going to look like at launch.

What am I supposed to do?

Just sit here with a picture of a secretary smile stapled to my face, nod along and go "yeah, yeah, this is just peachy-keen perfect, just implement as-is in the next patch Piranha, we don't even need to test anything!" like literally every-goddamn-one else?

I get on one day, I see this "we're taking mobility away from engines and putting it nowhere!" post, and a half a dozen "Yay no more movement!" threads, with not one single f***ing individual so much as even just intellectually considering the possibility that excising movement benefits from the thing that makes you move might not actually be the best idea ever spawned by man.

Yes, I got het up over it. I. Like. Moving. Before the Clans I was a fairly dedicated medium pilot, with exactly three things above that bracket - two Phoenix chassis and Victors I got to lulz it up and configure as 385XL Supa Mids because that used to be a cool thing you could do. Even now, I prefer my Vipers and my Stormcrows and even my Sad Bad Adders to a number of Clan heavies and most Clan assaults. But here Piranha is, telling me "we're taking all that awesome movement you really love in your lower-weight machines and we're flushing it straight down the crapper with no compensation. Take all those 1% arm speed movement nodes in the Skilltree if you want to pretend to get your agility back. Choices Ho!", and every single cotton-picking one of you is telling me to shut up and be happy about it.

Ahem:

NO.

At no point am I okay with "shut up and just let it happen". I'm going to fight to be able to move like I'm in a Viper while I'm in a Viper until I can move like a f***ing Viper when I'm in my f***ing Vipers. I did not beg Piranha for that 'Mech like a shameless robo-ho, then buy its Collectors pack practically the first moment I could, so they could turn around a few months later and turn it into an undertonned, poorly armed, oddly-shaped STOCK GODS-BE-DAMNED CENTURION!

Edited by 1453 R, 24 February 2017 - 11:39 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

1453 R, on 24 February 2017 - 11:38 AM, said:

What am I supposed to do?

Just sit here with a picture of a secretary smile stapled to my face, nod along and go "yeah, yeah, this is just peachy-keen perfect, just implement as-is in the next patch Piranha, we don't even need to test anything!" like literally every-goddamn-one else?

Wait for more information so you don't look like a lunatic yelling at clouds?

Quote

I get on one day, I see this "we're taking mobility away from engines and putting it nowhere!" post, and a half a dozen "Yay no more movement!" threads, with not one single f***ing individual so much as even just intellectually considering the possibility that excising movement benefits from the thing that makes you move might not actually be the best idea ever spawned by man.

See, this is your problem. You think they are taking away mobility. Nowhere did PGI ever say that. In fact, they went out of their way to say that 'Mechs that need mobility will get mobility added. Conceptually, there's nothing wrong here. Can they screw up the specifics? Certainly, just like they did with the KDK, the BJ, the BLR, the STK, etc. But those are what need to be contested.

And please, spare me the "herpa derp but PGI!!11!1one" line that I anticipate will follow. It's insulting on so many levels when discussing theory.

[1453 R]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 February 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

...
See, this is your problem. You think they are taking away mobility. Nowhere did PGI ever say that. In fact, they went out of their way to say that 'Mechs that need mobility will get mobility added. Conceptually, there's nothing wrong here. Can they screw up the specifics? Certainly, just like they did with the KDK, the BJ, the BLR, the STK, etc. But those are what need to be contested.

And please, spare me the "herpa derp but PGI!!11!1one" line that I anticipate will follow. It's insulting on so many levels when discussing theory.

A'ight. Let's discuss theory then.

Why would they even do this, if the intent was not to upend the table? If they were going to decouple engines from granting mobility but then give top-end engine mobility to everything anyways, why even bother with the process of dismantling a system most people already accept as being fine and take for granted, outside the idle wonderings of ultracomps, only to ensure that removing that system and replacing it with a time-intensive, labor-intensive, far less automated systems of alleged manual tune-ups only for everything to keep doing what it's already doing?

Why upset the applecart, sink a bunch of dev hours the company is always telling us are more precious than gold, into something you're not actually tumbling any apples over?

[Metus regem]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 February 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

Sure they do, after you forcefully gag grognards and lock them in the basement so that the damn franchise can finally get updated for the 21st century.

Please do. Don't get me wrong, I love some of the lore for BT, but wow does it ever need an update...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Metus regem, on 24 February 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

Please do. Don't get me wrong, I love some of the lore for BT, but wow does it ever need an update...

So does some of the lore, there is a distinct lack of consistency (which shouldn't surprise anyone given the age of the IP) throughout the eras. Honestly, Dark Age felt like they were trying to do a soft reboot to capture the feel of the old school 3025 era, but failed pretty badly at doing that (especially with some of the mech designs that don't feel anything like the 3025 era for the most part and the other because it wasn't TT and was some weird clix system or whatever).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 24 February 2017 - 04:09 PM.