306 replies to this topic

[1453 R]

Pjwned, on 21 February 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

I would expect that acceleration & deceleration would still be dependent on engine rating, because that makes sense, but I guess it's possible it won't be.

Why would you expect that? All the folks who've been rioting over this idea for forever want absolutely nothing tied to engine rating except speed. I imagine a number of them would actually remove the heat sink slot advantage as well, if it wouldn't break stock builds.

The idea is to ensure that smaller-engine machines are as advantageous as possible against larger-engine machines, in an attempt to make the 12.5t you pay for a 250XL completely equivalent, balance-wise, to the 26.5t you pay for a 375XL. Never mind all the "[X] tons should be worth [X] tons, regardless of what those [X] tons are spent on!" threads we all had a little bit ago, no no - a 12.5t engine should be exactly equivalent to, if not outright superior than, a 26.5t engine.

Can't be leaving acceleration values tied to engine rating if we want to ensure that 14 tons of equipment vanishes into insignificance, can we?

[Widowmaker1981]

Pjwned, on 21 February 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

I would expect that acceleration & deceleration would still be dependent on engine rating, because that makes sense, but I guess it's possible it won't be.

I DONT expect that, based on their wording and the fact that the 'mechs that are balanced around superior agility quirks' tend to have mahoosive acceleration and deceleration quirks as the primary part of those agility quirks.

Thats why im annoyed. Id be OK (if not super happy because i do favour large engine fatbro energy boats ingame, but thats bias and i accept that) with it if i thought it was just rotational stuff they were decoupling. The wording does not suggest that.

[Metus regem]

1453 R, on 21 February 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

We're not fighting wars. We're fighting battles. Critters getting behind you are significantly less of a threat because unlike what everyone else seems to think, the mediums and lights are losing as much if not more of their mobility and agility in this exchange. They're as "guilty" of the vicious, wicked sinful sin of Installing Bigger Engines as heavies and assaults, and often do so to a greater extent since it's both easier and more critical for them. Restricting all medium 'Mechs in the game to stock Blackjack movement profile is a massive favor for assault guys looking to avoid getting flanked, ne?

If you think you'll be able to just nimbly and agilely outmaneuver larger 'Mechs with your mediums in an environment where engines buy you diddly, recheck your thought processes.

Are you really saying that you cannot understand the meaning of what I typed? I though it was rather clear, apparently so did a few others...

That being said, an "engagement" in MWO can be won via fire power, but the battle is won via mobility. And yes, there can be as few as one or as many as 12 "engagements" during a match (battle) in MWO....

As for flanking I do a pretty good job of it, in anything that can push 70km/h or more.... it about getting around your back side and putting PPC's, large bore AC/s or SRM's in to you, while minimizing my exposure to return fire. That is where speed is important. What you are doing is going all "InfoTech" on this, before it's even had a chance to be tested...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 February 2017 - 01:27 PM, said:

difference between 66 and 81 kph for heavies, and 59 and 72 for assaults.

FTFY (compared a GHR-5P and BLR-2C with XL and STD). You are talking between 18-19% speed decreases which is pretty significant for something that is meant to be aggressive typically.

[Wintersdark]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 February 2017 - 01:27 PM, said:

We arent talking about the difference between 50 and 80 kph though, thats ridiculous, we are talking about the difference between 68-70 and 80 kph for heavies, and 58-60 and 70 for assaults. those differences are far lower, and really make very little difference to the time it takes to traverse areas (do you feel left behind in a 80 kph grasshopper vs a 90 kph Timber? I dont)

My biggest fear is that the idea that the Dire feels 'how an assault should feel' according to some is what PGI will go with, and say if you are a fatty, you get to feel as sluggish as a Dire. You might run faster in a straight line, but thats it. And that will ruin my favoured class for me, just like it ruined the Dire for me when they nerfhammered the old skill tree.

A valid fear.

I'm an assault pilot at heart, and I went through exactly the same thing with my Direwolf. All I can say here, is that this is why testing is important. Much like my responses to 1453 R, it's fine to say "Values for the baselines below this point would remove <weight class> from play." That does not make the system bad, it makes the tuning of the system bad.

As to the relative speeds, I'm using 1453's stated "engines people will use".

If the engines people do use are larger - if heavies are running 300's, assaults are running 350's, then his arguments fall completely flat as the tonnage savings are minor as well as the speed losses.

Basically, you need substantial speed losses to make up large tonnage gains to allow for a substantial firepower increase (where said firepower increase is even possible given slot/hardpoint/heat limits).

1453 R, on 21 February 2017 - 01:46 PM, said:

Why would you expect that? All the folks who've been rioting over this idea for forever want absolutely nothing tied to engine rating except speed. I imagine a number of them would actually remove the heat sink slot advantage as well, if it wouldn't break stock builds.

I've pushed this "forever" (read: 5 years). I still feel acceleration should NOT be decoupled, and I've never in all that time seen someone advocate for a removal of heat sinks from engine size.

What's more, removing the bonus heat sinks from engine size would break stock builds and thus is totally out of the question.

Quote

The idea is to ensure that smaller-engine machines are as advantageous as possible against larger-engine machines, in an attempt to make the 12.5t you pay for a 250XL completely equivalent, balance-wise, to the 26.5t you pay for a 375XL. Never mind all the "[X] tons should be worth [X] tons, regardless of what those [X] tons are spent on!" threads we all had a little bit ago, no no - a 12.5t engine should be exactly equivalent to, if not outright superior than, a 26.5t engine.

Can't be leaving acceleration values tied to engine rating if we want to ensure that 14 tons of equipment vanishes into insignificance, can we?

When hyperbole fails, resort to strawmen!

Edited by Wintersdark, 21 February 2017 - 02:10 PM.

[1453 R]

Wintersdark, on 21 February 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

A valid fear.

I'm an assault pilot at heart, and I went through exactly the same thing with my Direwolf. All I can say here, is that this is why testing is important. Much like my responses to 1453 R, it's fine to say "Values for the baselines below this point would remove <weight class> from play." That does not make the system bad, it makes the tuning of the system bad.

Clarification: if the system comes out and people turn, accelerate, decelerate, and twist/maneuver less than half as quickly as they do now, you would actually be on board with stepping into this here forum they keep moving everybody's threads into and saying "OIY! TOO MUCH!"?

Because you're giving "A valid fear" to Widowmaker, but telling me to shut the f*** up and just put up with whatever Piranha implements. Seems a somewhat contradictory stance.

Wintersdark, on 21 February 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

I've pushed this "forever" (read: 5 years). I still feel acceleration should NOT be decoupled, and I've never in all that time seen someone advocate for a removal of heat sinks from engine size.

What's more, removing the bonus heat sinks from engine size would break stock builds and thus is totally out of the question.

Just because it isn't possible doesn't mean people don't want it. See: everything Mystere's ever said.

As well, mind elucidating? Every "Decouple Engines!" thread I've seen before this one has always been a call for an absolute cleaving of all non-footspeed stats from the engine, including acceleration/deceleration.

Wintersdark, on 21 February 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

...
When hyperbole fails, resort to strawmen!

||
V

Wintersdark, on 21 February 2017 - 12:19 PM, said:

...
But I *WOULD* consider running a ballistic mech with a smaller engine which I won't do now, because the loss of agility is too severe. I'm very happy to see that as an option.

So, right there, where ever the agility baseline is, there's reason to use larger vs. smaller engines in addition to the (very important) ground speed.

Or, to simplify: "I am fine with smaller engines being better choices for 'Mechs than larger engines."

Is that not how that one works?

[Mechteric]

I highly doubt it, ever driven an Assault mech with a 250 engine? Dreadfully low top speed. Gotta keep in mind top speed is still very important.

[l33tworks]

I dont think this idea can possibly stick...It changes a vital balancing tradeoff that has been a foundation in mwo since day one. i.e giving up available tonnage for more mobility, or sacrificing mobility for more tonnage and firepower.

I dont think PGI or the players advocating this realise how pivital the engine tie to mobiity is to the game and IMO once players get their hands on it they will see how much it breaks the game and PGI will simply opt to keep it like it is, and just reduce the correlation between engine size and mobility so its not as big of a factor but still there.

By the way I am not trying to just advocate what suits my playstyle. The change to me will be welcome since I tend to run lower engines most of the time since i like moar guns, I just think it will kill diversity. For example sometimes I like to run an xl360 in my king crab to get it feeling fast but fragile. Now there will be no point in doing that. The same can be said for 1000s of other builds.

Why would you want to kill of such a cool and dynamic part of the game its luducrous imo especially since i even remember russ praising the new mechanic they have come up with back in 2012.

I agree with 2012 russ tying engine size to mobility is innovative and and good thing they did different.

Edited by l33tworks, 21 February 2017 - 03:14 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

l33tworks, on 21 February 2017 - 03:11 PM, said:

i.e giving up available tonnage for more mobility, or sacrificing mobility for more tonnage and firepower.

The fact the BESM is still running strong is telling that this "trade-off" isn't really working.

[Jables McBarty]

Wintersdark, on 21 February 2017 - 09:00 AM, said:

...

So, going "turret" in current MWO is basically a non-starter most of the time as you sacrifice not just ground speed for more guns, but also the ability to USE those guns effectively. Running a slower mech SHOULD be a viable option.

#Annihilator2017?

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 February 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

The fact the BESM is still running strong is telling that this "trade-off" isn't really working.

So the solution is to flip it the other way completely and eliminate BESM as an option, instead?

[l33tworks]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 February 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

The fact the BESM is still running strong is telling that this "trade-off" isn't really working.

Thats eniterly because halfway down the line PGI also decided to bottleneck firepower as well by introducing ghost heat and made a darn good go at almost completely sufficating builds with more firepower potential by trying to implement Energy draw.

Suddenly there was no drawback to going bigger engine since you have the same game wide firepower capping system thats literally the same across all mechs so the mechs that have the extra space i.e mostly heavies snd assaults can use the extra available tonnage for a bigger engine since there is no point in taking more weapons.

GH set a celing of firepower to reach and not exceed so you can use the rest in engine.

Edited by l33tworks, 21 February 2017 - 03:34 PM.

[FupDup]

l33tworks, on 21 February 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:

Thats eniterly because halfway down the line PGI also decided to bottleneck firepower as well by introducing ghost heat and made a darn good go at almost completely sufficating builds with more firepower potential by trying to implement Energy draw.

Suddenly there was no drawback to going bigger engine since you have the same game wide firepower capping system thats literally the same across all mechs so the mechs that have the extra space i.e mostly heavies snd assaults can use the extra available tonnage for a bigger engine since there is no point in taking more weapons.

Woild have been better to increase armour a foss the board or decrease multiple weapon accuracy than to implement GH, since it set a celing of firepower to reach and not exceed so you can use the rest in engine.

It's more than just Ghost Heat. Regular heat in general sets a hard cap on how much firepower you can take, particularly for energy weapons. You don't even have the option to take more lasers because you'll just fry yourself without any Ghosts involved.

There are significant diminishing returns for equipping more weapons in MWO since our heat output massively outpaces our heat sink cooling rates.

Speaking of which, those bigger engines let you mount more heatsinks, therefore increasing your heat efficiency and therefore firepower.

Edited by FupDup, 21 February 2017 - 03:34 PM.

[l33tworks]

FupDup, on 21 February 2017 - 03:33 PM, said:

It's more than just Ghost Heat. Regular heat in general sets a hard cap on how much firepower you can take, particularly for energy weapons. You don't even have the option to take more lasers because you'll just fry yourself without any Ghosts involved.

There are significant diminishing returns for equipping more weapons in MWO since our heat output massively outpaces our heat sink cooling rates.

Speaking of which, those bigger engines let you mount more heatsinks, therefore increasing your heat efficiency and therefore firepower.

If what you say is true then why implement GH? If somebody wants to run a mech with "diminishing returns" and a net sum of less firepower why not let them? I see no point to it other than ruining fun.

Because lets face it where are we today with ppfl 50-60pt dual guass dual ppc alphas thats so different to pre ghost heat days alphas?

Pre ghost heat was just so much more damn fun because of diversity. I wish they found a better way to deal with it than GH like more armour for mechs.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 21 February 2017 - 03:27 PM, said:

So the solution is to flip it the other way completely and eliminate BESM as an option, instead?

That's your assumption. There is a reason this is a change widely supported by comp players and it isn't because they want this game to become turret warrior.

l33tworks, on 21 February 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:

Thats eniterly because halfway down the line PGI also decided to bottleneck firepower as well by introducing ghost heat

You realize that firepower currently is significantly more than during the days of ghost heat right? Keeping in mind that ghost heat is what keeps my BLR-2C from being even more brutal with 5 LPLs.....

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 February 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

That's your assumption. There is a reason this is a change widely supported by comp players and it isn't because they want this game to become turret warrior.

What is that reason, then? Because what I mostly see is "Yay I can put tiny engines in my ballistics 'Mechs and not care!" or "Yay, heavy and assault 'mechs are going to be EZPZ free food for medium and light 'Mechs, nobody will ever pilot fatties again!"

Why are comp players against engine upgrades being a worthwhile investment for players beyond a bare minimum imposed by heat or space constraints?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 21 February 2017 - 04:00 PM, said:

Why are comp players against engine upgrades being a worthwhile investment for players beyond a bare minimum imposed by heat or space constraints?

Wow, can't even ask a neutral question can you?

Your question should've been: "Why do com players believe that trade-off doesn't exist currently?" To which I would reply because the meta choices all choose large engines over maximizing firepower.

[Wintersdark]

1453 R, on 21 February 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

Clarification: if the system comes out and people turn, accelerate, decelerate, and twist/maneuver less than half as quickly as they do now, you would actually be on board with stepping into this here forum they keep moving everybody's threads into and saying "OIY! TOO MUCH!"?

Because you're giving "A valid fear" to Widowmaker, but telling me to shut the f*** up and just put up with whatever Piranha implements. Seems a somewhat contradictory stance.

Because you are raving about ridiculous exaggerated things. "Everyone is going to run a 250 rated engine!" That's what you said. That's silly.

Widowmaker, however, has been a lot more reasonable. You'll note he's said he's fine with it, so long as accel isn't also decoupled.

All your statements have been founded on a very extreme set of assumptions. I already said it's theoretically possible that PGI could do that, and if they did, it would be a problem that would need correcting, but that there's no reason to assume the "worst case scenario" is where they'd go to immediately.

Do i need to go back and quote where I said that it needs to be tested, and if the baseline stats are too low, we need to be loud about that? Because when I said that, I also said that PGI has shown themselves to actually have an open ear over this testing period, and they ARE adjusting the things people complained the most about. Do you think anyone actually wants mechs half as maneuverable as they are now, across the board? I REALLY don't think a lot of people will be happy with that in practice. So, no, I did not say "STFU and be happy with what PGI implements"; I rather specifically said "If they drop the ball, complain, and they ought to modify it as they've been doing so far with the PTS."

Quote

As well, mind elucidating? Every "Decouple Engines!" thread I've seen before this one has always been a call for an absolute cleaving of all non-footspeed stats from the engine, including acceleration/deceleration.

Who has said "No! It should include acceleration too!"? Who's said that specifically? Has anyone? I haven't seen it.

Quote

Or, to simplify: "I am fine with smaller engines being better choices for 'Mechs than larger engines."

Is that not how that one works?

Yes. I am fine with smaller engines being better for some builds than larger ones. I am not fine with the exaggerated claims you make ("everyone is going to run a 250") because that's silly. Ground speed has a lot of value, and you're not going to see everyone making 50-70kph mechs.

If you're going to say you've been exaggerating "for effect" all along, then GTFO.

But in the current MWO, practically nobody will drop down in engine ratings because speed+agility+heat is simply too valuable per ton. Not everyone goes to max, of course, but larger is generally better in most cases now, even when compared to the firepower lost. This hurts IS much more than it hurts Clans, and Clans are in a better place overall balance wise.

Removing agility from that allows engine rating to be a more interesting choice, instead of an obvious one. Do you need the internal space/heat sinks, or do you need tonnage? How much speed are you going to sacrifice?

When it's speed AND agility, there is a hard floor in how far you're willing to go down there, because you're losing twice as much value per engine rating, so nobody does.

So, if running a smaller engine is a more viable choice - not always optimal, but simply more viable choice overall, then IS benefits dramatically and they need to, given all the other Clan advantages.

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 February 2017 - 04:03 PM, said:

Wow, can't even ask a neutral question can you?

Your question should've been: "Why do com players believe that trade-off doesn't exist currently?" To which I would reply because the meta choices all choose large engines over maximizing firepower.

A'ight. let's try this, then.

Ahem: "Do you believe 'Mechs with large engines will be as common, post-decoupling, as 'Mechs with small engines? If not, why do you think that would be so?"

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 21 February 2017 - 04:05 PM, said:

A'ight. let's try this, then.

Ahem: "Do you believe 'Mechs with large engines will be as common, post-decoupling, as 'Mechs with small engines? If not, why do you think that would be so?"

Much better.

I do believe they will be as common because the ability to reposition still is important in determining strats. The lower the range of a mech, the more speed is important because it allows you to close the distance faster (which means less time spent making unfavorable trades). This is why in low weight drops in MRBC (like drop 1 which has 4 lights and 4 mediums per team) are almost exclusively brawl because there is enough speed on both sides that ranged decks can't deal substantial enough damage to combat the short range speed and DPS.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 February 2017 - 04:09 PM.