306 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

I dare you to start running an assault mech with a 250 engine in the PTS after the update drops. See how effective it is.

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 February 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

Again, nothing but a giant ball of worthless assumptions based on some weird fear that PGI is somehow going to make Vipers feel like an assault. I love the Viper and Cicada to pieces and I'm not even worried about that ever happening, so the question is why are you?

So seriously, why do you devolve into hyperbolic nonsense in EVERY argument, especially to such the extreme you are doing right now.........

Because nobody else gives a s***

Everyone else is overjoyed that engines are going to start being the next best thing to dead weight because of all the "assault 'Mechs are too agile!" stuff people get het up over. Nobody else cares if everything else feels like a three-legged zombie moose, mostly because they don't even seem to realize that the mediums/lights are losing a larger overall percentage of their mobility than fatbros which're already constrained to proportionally smaller engines as it is. Everyone is so freaking spastically happy that they'll be able to put 180XLs in their Highlanders or whatever and not have to Pay The Penalty for it, it boggles my mind.

This isn't "yay slow 'Mechs are better!" This is "damn, everything that isn't slow is massively worse! And we have no possible way of fixing it!" People who like slow 'Mechs are jumping for joy because they won't be threatened by fast 'Mechs anymore and can dominate the game, TT guys are jumping for joy because they're bloody weird, but I can't figure out why medium jockeys and even light pilots are looking at this thing like some Great Gift of Balance when we all know that Piranha is going to f*** it up.

They're all right at coming up with broad frameworks. Like I said last time, the bones of the Skilltree were pretty solid. A lot of what PGI comes up with, in broad scope, makes at least some sense. It's the particulars they can't get right to save their existences, and this whole thing is a giant mess of particulars. Do you truly, honestly believe that somebody at PGI is going to sit down with however many hundreds of individual variants we have now and manually tweak numbers off of The Formula to try and get everything right? Do you believe they'll succeed, even in the vanishingly unlikely even that they try?

Any/every/all Clan fast 'Mechs are in for a boning when this nonsense goes live. Most Sphere 'Mechs will be the same, except for one or two variants that somehow get massively overcompensated and become the only remaining machines to move enough like they used to that Fatbros actually feel threatened by them. It'll take many moons for PGI to do a damn thing about any of the particulars they failed at, they'll never get to them all, and eventually we'll all just have to accept that fast strike is no longer a viable role within the scope of MWO.

And people are happy about this?

[Widowmaker1981]

@ 1453 overly hyperbolic suggestions that lights will now feel like assaults dont help, going to ridiculous extreme hurts your argument, and i largely agree with you on the point of not really liking this idea.

SuomiWarder, on 21 February 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

I've never really felt that one should be able to run around a standing assault faster than they could turn in place anyway, so I'm not particularly concerned.

And yes, lights are in my 90+ mechs and in fact I like mediums. So I know that I am going against my own advantages here.

This will inevitably hurt assaults more than lights - tbh lights will be pretty much unaffected by the rotational parts because they already twist and turn far more than fast enough, unless we are talking Urbanmechs with sub 150 engines. Lights will still take the biggest engine available because they rely on speed for damage avoidance. Straight line speed doesnt help assaults or heavies avoid damage because hitting/tracking a fatbro going at 70 is exactly as difficult as hitting a fatbro going 53 kph - Not even slightly difficult.

The biggest losers will be the assault and heavy energy boats that currently run big engines to allow enough agility them to play the peeky pokey game required of energy boats. They might die out, unless acc/dec is left coupled to engine size.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Decoupling is great, but they really ought to throw a bone to 355+ engines. They're just so stupidly heavy

[Wintersdark]

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?

"Restricting all medium 'Mechs in the game to stock Blackjack movement profile..."

Seriously, this is RANK speculation and grossly false, given how PGI specifically says in the brief writeup that the Phoenix Hawk will have a much better mobility profile than the Blackjack.

But there's no reason to assume the Blackjack's stock movement profile is what the baseline for all mediums will be. No reason whatsoever.

And in terms of Metus's quote, exchange "wars" and "battles" with "battles" and "engagements". I thought his meaning was pretty clear, but whatever.

We don't line up and shoot at each other until one side dies. Well, sometimes that happens in bad pug battles, but it generally doesn't at any more competent levels of play. If you're in a poor position, you move. Most battles tend to be very mobile. A slower mech is less able to reposition than a fast mech. Static battle lines are often losing battle lines in MWO, this is true even today. Teams that turtle and camp very often lose when faced with a more mobile opposing force.

Honestly, I'm utterly flummoxed that you can stand there and argue that being dramatically slower is not a disadvantage in a battle. And while I wasn't arguing that NASCAR was wonderful, the reason it was (and is) successful is purely because speed is indeed a very potent advantage. You're totally disregarding the power of ground speed as a factor in MWO battles, and that's frankly just ridiculous.

Now, I'll admit to not playing a lot recently (I'm waiting for the skill changes to be implemented before really playing much; as I need to decide whether I WILL continue playing or not) I can't imagine that in the last two months gameplay has changed so much that mobility isn't still deciding battles regularly, and that people turtling up and winning is super common.

[Wintersdark]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 February 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

@ 1453 overly hyperbolic suggestions that lights will now feel like assaults dont help, going to ridiculous extreme hurts your argument, and i largely agree with you on the point of not really liking this idea.



This will inevitably hurt assaults more than lights - tbh lights will be pretty much unaffected by the rotational parts because they already twist and turn far more than fast enough, unless we are talking Urbanmechs with sub 150 engines. Lights will still take the biggest engine available because they rely on speed for damage avoidance. Straight line speed doesnt help assaults or heavies avoid damage because hitting/tracking a fatbro going at 70 is exactly as difficult as hitting a fatbro going 53 kph - Not even slightly difficult.

The biggest losers will be the assault and heavy energy boats that currently run big engines to allow enough agility them to play the peeky pokey game required of energy boats. They might die out, unless acc/dec is left coupled to engine size.

It's definitely going to hurt heavies and assaults more than lights/mediums.

Whether it hurts lights and mediums at all depends heavily on where the baseline profile is; but regardless of where the baselines are, they'll end up in a better place than they are right now.

Moving slower does hurt heavies and assaults, though. Sure, they don't use speed for damage avoidance like lights do, but the speed DOES impact how much damage they take as it directly correlates to exposure time while repositioning. Slow down, and the OpFor has more time to take you apart as you move from cover to cover, so if you choose to take a tiny little engine in your Heavy or Assault, you're doing so knowing that there's a very real chance you could simply be pinned down early in the battle because you'll take too much damage moving from cover to cover.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 21 February 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

Because nobody else gives a s***

So you purposely make your argument worse so people ignore you more, what sense does that make?

And let's be clear here, people do care, in this case however there are easy solutions to mechs that are unduly hurt by this change (Mr Gargles, Linebacker, etc) and overall the change is viewed as a net positive because we aren't making insane assumptions on what the baselines will be.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 February 2017 - 12:41 PM.

[Deathlike]

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

Exactly. Particularly for hot mechs (read: energy based), a larger engine is extremely valuable.

Despite:

In practice, mechs that needs the increased dissipation are ones that run lighter loadouts: Specifically, energy boats. These mechs are mounting multiple comparably light weight weapons which require lots of DHS.

I'll admit, back when the initial push to larger engines happened, I argued this with you(Deathlike) - that the added weight wouldn't be worth the slots - and I was totally wrong. Practice and some time in the mechlab proved it hands down.

Hot weapons are, generally speaking, lighter and physically smaller. These mechs have tonnage to spare, and DHS (particularly IS side) are extremely light per slot used.

Even without the agility, I wouldn't consider running an energy boat with a smaller engine.

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.


Editted to clarify the "you" above.

I specialize a lot more in energy mechs, so it's not hard to notice the trend (although any experienced labrat/MechlabWarrior can figure this out too). This includes SRM boats as well.

I notice the opposite happens with dakka... most notably in the penultimate mech in the Mauler (King Crab to a lesser extent) where having a large STD engine is detrimental to firepower. Such mechs are capped @ 325 (with a min of 300) or so because the rest of the tonnage is dedicated to putting in all the dakka. The Atlas is the exception mostly because you can't fit that much dakka (at best, 2 UAC5s/LBX10s) and it's still not that tonnage consuming compared with 4 UAC5s or 5 AC5s (which is why the recommended engines for the Atlas is between 325 and 350, generally speaking).

You will end up wanting a "large enough engine" since at some point you'll be capped by tonnage, but don't usually want to lose too much in the agility department (Mauler tend to be a lot more vulnerable to Lights than an Atlas as a consequence).

Going slower enginewise is really to your own detriment.

[Wintersdark]

1453 R, on 21 February 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

Because nobody else gives a s***

Everyone else is overjoyed that engines are going to start being the next best thing to dead weight because of all the "assault 'Mechs are too agile!" stuff people get het up over. Nobody else cares if everything else feels like a three-legged zombie moose, mostly because they don't even seem to realize that the mediums/lights are losing a larger overall percentage of their mobility than fatbros which're already constrained to proportionally smaller engines as it is. Everyone is so freaking spastically happy that they'll be able to put 180XLs in their Highlanders or whatever and not have to Pay The Penalty for it, it boggles my mind.

This isn't "yay slow 'Mechs are better!" This is "damn, everything that isn't slow is massively worse! And we have no possible way of fixing it!" People who like slow 'Mechs are jumping for joy because they won't be threatened by fast 'Mechs anymore and can dominate the game, TT guys are jumping for joy because they're bloody weird, but I can't figure out why medium jockeys and even light pilots are looking at this thing like some Great Gift of Balance when we all know that Piranha is going to f*** it up.

They're all right at coming up with broad frameworks. Like I said last time, the bones of the Skilltree were pretty solid. A lot of what PGI comes up with, in broad scope, makes at least some sense. It's the particulars they can't get right to save their existences, and this whole thing is a giant mess of particulars. Do you truly, honestly believe that somebody at PGI is going to sit down with however many hundreds of individual variants we have now and manually tweak numbers off of The Formula to try and get everything right? Do you believe they'll succeed, even in the vanishingly unlikely even that they try?

Any/every/all Clan fast 'Mechs are in for a boning when this nonsense goes live. Most Sphere 'Mechs will be the same, except for one or two variants that somehow get massively overcompensated and become the only remaining machines to move enough like they used to that Fatbros actually feel threatened by them. It'll take many moons for PGI to do a damn thing about any of the particulars they failed at, they'll never get to them all, and eventually we'll all just have to accept that fast strike is no longer a viable role within the scope of MWO.

And people are happy about this?

Because you're running off a set of assumptions with no basis in reality.

You're assuming, for example, that Mediums are going to "lose a larger percentage of their mobility than heavies or assaults". You base this off.... what? You don't know where the baseline levels are going to be, so this is simply rank speculation.

But this is why it needs to be tested. If ALL mechs lose a lot of agility, and they all suck to pilot, then yeah, that's a problem and the whole reason it gets tested first. Then you adjust the baseline profiles, and all is golden.


It's not like the concept requires removing the bonus to agility by engine speed and just having all mechs be that much less agile. We know the base profile will vary based on weight class (probably tonnage, too, but we know class), AND that individual mechs will have their base profile increased if they're mechs relying on agility. There's no reason to assume that the base profile will be that of an urbanmech today.

[Widowmaker1981]

Wintersdark, on 21 February 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

Moving slower does hurt heavies and assaults, though. Sure, they don't use speed for damage avoidance like lights do, but the speed DOES impact how much damage they take as it directly correlates to exposure time while repositioning. Slow down, and the OpFor has more time to take you apart as you move from cover to cover, so if you choose to take a tiny little engine in your Heavy or Assault, you're doing so knowing that there's a very real chance you could simply be pinned down early in the battle because you'll take too much damage moving from cover to cover.

Moving through any significant area of open ground in a heavy or assault in view of more than one enemy is suicidal in the game right now, when you make movements around large areas i always do it out of LOS (or if not afforded that option.. get so mangled the game is done for). Movement speed has some advantages, of course, but by far and away the reason i bring massive XLs and not smaller, more survivable STD engines in BLRs and BNCs is acceleration, deceleration and twist speed, because it allows you to do the things that actually DO mitigate damage for big mechs - getting behind a wall, and putting your arms in the way. If they uncouple all of that stuff, then id likely switch to STD engines in those mechs (or not use them at all and laugh all the way to the bank in a Mauler or Sleipnir thats now just as agile as a BLR, and also able to mitigate damage by making your face fall off).

I can however see how its too one sided a choice in the other direction now, so id be OK with this if (and ONLY if) acceleration and deceleration were left coupled to engine size.

[Deathlike]

If you think PGI's going to screw this up, then yes, I'm with that idea all day every day.

If you want to poop on the idea, despite evidence to the contrary... well, we can give you the rope and you can do whatever you want with it.

I don't have time for theoretical discussions that make zero sense based on some ridiculous assertion or hyperbole.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 February 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

ut by far and away the reason i bring massive XLs and not smaller, more survivable STD engines in BLRs and BNCs is acceleration, deceleration and twist speed, because it allows you to do the things that actually DO mitigate damage for big mechs - getting behind a wall, and putting your arms in the way. If they uncouple all of that stuff, then id likely switch to STD engines in those mechs

I won't because I still want to move fast with 5 LPLs. You would drop from going 71.7kph (XL 350) to 58.4-59.4kph (STD 285-290) which is a pretty huge drop in speed. If I'm going to go that slow I'd almost rather have a Stalker.

[1453 R]

Wintersdark, on 21 February 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

"Restricting all medium 'Mechs in the game to stock Blackjack movement profile..."

Seriously, this is RANK speculation and grossly false, given how PGI specifically says in the brief writeup that the Phoenix Hawk will have a much better mobility profile than the Blackjack.

But there's no reason to assume the Blackjack's stock movement profile is what the baseline for all mediums will be. No reason whatsoever.

There's also no reason to assume it'll be any better. With the singular exception of the Phoenix Hawk, nobody knows which 'Mechs - if any others - are going to be gifted with special mobility advantages. Nobody knows how significant those advantages will be, or what the baseline those advantages will be derived from will be.

What I do know is that people have been going absolutely insane over the fact that assault 'Mechs exist that can reverse their heading in less than fifteen seconds pretty much ever since the Victor was introduced. So I'm inclined to believe that PGI's going to be more merciless than not when it comes to eliminating mobility bonuses from the game.

Wintersdark, on 21 February 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

Honestly, I'm utterly flummoxed that you can stand there and argue that being dramatically slower is not a disadvantage in a battle. And while I wasn't arguing that NASCAR was wonderful, the reason it was (and is) successful is purely because speed is indeed a very potent advantage. You're totally disregarding the power of ground speed as a factor in MWO battles, and that's frankly just ridiculous.

Now, I'll admit to not playing a lot recently (I'm waiting for the skill changes to be implemented before really playing much; as I need to decide whether I WILL continue playing or not) I can't imagine that in the last two months gameplay has changed so much that mobility isn't still deciding battles regularly, and that people turtling up and winning is super common.

Being dramatically slower is a disadvantage in battle, yes.

I don't believe being dramatically slower is enough of a disadvantage to potentially offset twice the available firepower, especially when sheer footspeed is no longer combined with the fancy-feeties footsy work that allows smaller, lighter machines to actually avoid fire, rather than simply change positions faster. Changing positions faster is all well and great, but when the Big Things you're hunting are so intensely overarmed that they only ever need to hit you once, not having the ability to invest in the stronger acceleration, deceleration, and/or twist/turn speeds you'd need to actually outmaneuver the Big Thing, rather than just beat it in a foot race, means the Big Thing gets to just pwnooblerate Supa Alpha you in the faceregion pretty much for free unless you're vastly better than he is.

[Weeny Machine]

Yup, extra heat sinks slots and more speed are totally not worth to upgrade your engine...

[Wintersdark]

1453 R, on 21 February 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:

There's also no reason to assume it'll be any better. With the singular exception of the Phoenix Hawk, nobody knows which 'Mechs - if any others - are going to be gifted with special mobility advantages. Nobody knows how significant those advantages will be, or what the baseline those advantages will be derived from will be.

Well, we know it'll be "mechs that require agility to remain competitive", so a reasonable assumption is that translates to "The mechs that we're already quirking for agility so they can remain competitive" (inasmuch as those mechs are competitive). That's a big list of mechs.

There's basically a huge range from "stock blackjack is the baseline for mediums = 70kph agility (as agility is currently 100% based on ground speed)" to "90kph equivilancy is the baseline for mediums (which would be roughly a current Blackjack)" or even beyond.

Yes, if the baselines are put at far less than current across the board, even with lights then that's a problem, and it'll be a problem to bring up in the PTS feedback. And it'll be a problem people DO bring up in the PTS feedback, as it'd piss off basically 100% of players.

PGI has shown with this PTS that they are listening to players' feedback. So, reasonably speaking, there's not really a reason to fear that overall.

Quote

What I do know is that people have been going absolutely insane over the fact that assault 'Mechs exist that can reverse their heading in less than fifteen seconds pretty much ever since the Victor was introduced. So I'm inclined to believe that PGI's going to be more merciless than not when it comes to eliminating mobility bonuses from the game.

Uhuh.

Quote

Being dramatically slower is a disadvantage in battle, yes.

I don't believe being dramatically slower is enough of a disadvantage to potentially offset twice the available firepower, especially when sheer footspeed is no longer combined with the fancy-feeties footsy work that allows smaller, lighter machines to actually avoid fire, rather than simply change positions faster. Changing positions faster is all well and great, but when the Big Things you're hunting are so intensely overarmed that they only ever need to hit you once, not having the ability to invest in the stronger acceleration, deceleration, and/or twist/turn speeds you'd need to actually outmaneuver the Big Thing, rather than just beat it in a foot race, means the Big Thing gets to just pwnooblerate Supa Alpha you in the faceregion pretty much for free unless you're vastly better than he is.

It's not "double the firepower". Hardpoints, space limitations, and heat dissipation all have hard constraints on the firepower you can actually bring to the table.

We ran with mechs at slower speeds before, man. We did it. At the speeds you're saying. There wasn't a tremendous firepower difference. There WAS a firepower difference, but not on the scales you're saying.

And, no, nobody is dropping down from 70kph to 50kph and laughing. That's a massive, massive speed loss, even divorced from agility factors.

The Big Thing may have more firepower, but that firepower isn't very helpful if you're too slow to prevent an opfor from moving around your position (as you cannot reposition) and attacking from multiple directions at once.

[Wintersdark]

But yes, this will very likely benefit the IS more than it does that Clans.

And again, even as a "filthy clanner" I have no problem with that. And indeed, that is specifically one reason PGI is doing it, according to their post.

If more IS mechs find value in running a Standard engine because they have tonnage to spare and they don't need to go as fast, well, that's a great thing IMHO.

[Wintersdark]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 February 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

Moving through any significant area of open ground in a heavy or assault in view of more than one enemy is suicidal in the game right now, when you make movements around large areas i always do it out of LOS (or if not afforded that option.. get so mangled the game is done for). Movement speed has some advantages, of course, but by far and away the reason i bring massive XLs and not smaller, more survivable STD engines in BLRs and BNCs is acceleration, deceleration and twist speed, because it allows you to do the things that actually DO mitigate damage for big mechs - getting behind a wall, and putting your arms in the way. If they uncouple all of that stuff, then id likely switch to STD engines in those mechs (or not use them at all and laugh all the way to the bank in a Mauler or Sleipnir thats now just as agile as a BLR, and also able to mitigate damage by making your face fall off).

I can however see how its too one sided a choice in the other direction now, so id be OK with this if (and ONLY if) acceleration and deceleration were left coupled to engine size.

Here's the thing.

"Significant" in your first sentence above is determined wholly by how fast your mech is. How much ground you can cover while exposed is determined 100% by how fast you can cover that ground, vs the amount of fire that can be directed against you. In every instance, the faster you can move the better off you are. And while I agree that you always want to move out of LOS, in practice that is not always an option. Even a move between nearby objects, when you're looking at things like Heavies moving at 50kph vs 80kph, that's a LOT of exposure time difference.

There will be many cases as well where that speed difference - a huge speed difference - is the difference between someone having the time to draw a good bead on you at all, or see you but not be able to get a shot off.

And while it probably matters less at the high end of play, those speed differences totally impact your average player's accuracy. If you have time to aim carefully, or if you're just snap shooting to get a hit in rather than not getting a hit at all.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

@OP:

Foot speed and internal heat sink slots are the two big reasons to take a large engine. Nothing there has changed. I see no downside to the upcoming test system.

And it will hardly make everything of a given weight the same. PGI has already said that they'll set the base agility stats for each mech based on various considerations (the example being the P-Hawk having better base mobility than the BJ). Not only is this how things should have been from the beginning, but it gives PGI way more ability to distinguish mechs of the same weight one from another.

[Widowmaker1981]

Wintersdark, on 21 February 2017 - 01:16 PM, said:

Here's the thing.

"Significant" in your first sentence above is determined wholly by how fast your mech is. How much ground you can cover while exposed is determined 100% by how fast you can cover that ground, vs the amount of fire that can be directed against you. In every instance, the faster you can move the better off you are. And while I agree that you always want to move out of LOS, in practice that is not always an option. Even a move between nearby objects, when you're looking at things like Heavies moving at 50kph vs 80kph, that's a LOT of exposure time difference.

There will be many cases as well where that speed difference - a huge speed difference - is the difference between someone having the time to draw a good bead on you at all, or see you but not be able to get a shot off.

And while it probably matters less at the high end of play, those speed differences totally impact your average player's accuracy. If you have time to aim carefully, or if you're just snap shooting to get a hit in rather than not getting a hit at all.

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.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 21 February 2017 - 01:32 PM.

[Pjwned]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 February 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

The biggest losers will be the assault and heavy energy boats that currently run big engines to allow enough agility them to play the peeky pokey game required of energy boats. They might die out, unless acc/dec is left coupled to engine size.

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.