306 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

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?"

From a non-comp but experienced viewpoint:

Yes, I believe large engines will be as common as small engines; though "large and small" need some clarification here. But fundamentally...

Because:

* Every energy based build is going to want a moderate to large engine, as are SRM based builds, because the heat sink space is extremely valuable.
* Speed is a critical factor in battles. In solo queue play, speed is required for success, as there's always a very real danger your team with simply run off in a random direction and you need to stay with them or die alone. The ability to react to changes on the battlefield is an absolute priority there.
* Extra tonnage on most mechs has decidedly diminishing returns on firepower. Nobody is doubling their firepower with this change.
* Speed is fun. Nobody likes trundling along at 50kph. It's boring.
* Brawling builds want speed to close distance fast.



Edit:

Compare to currently, where small engines are non-existent and moderate engines are uncommon.

Edited by Wintersdark, 21 February 2017 - 04:24 PM.

[Deathlike]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 February 2017 - 04:09 PM, said:

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.

You can occasionally get away with running 1 mech with long range and play with positioning... but inevitably if there's enough time to deal with the guy that uses range, it doesn't usually end well for "that guy".

TurretWarrior rarely works unless the given location is an incredibly superior position (see Alpine H10) as everyone tends to relocate to a better position to fight the battle they want to engage in (applies to both brawling and the range game).

[cazidin]

Hmm... Warhammers or Black Knights with lower rated standard engines instead of the fast and (until the PTS changes affect live) agile XLs AND durability skills? I approve.

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 February 2017 - 04:09 PM, said:

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.

Follow-up question: would you consider it an acceptable state of affairs if you turned out to be incorrect? If small-engine 'Mechs were significantly more common than large-engine 'Mechs, and larger engines were considered to be a 'noob trap' or a holdover from days when BESM existed?

Wintersdark, on 21 February 2017 - 04:14 PM, said:

From a non-comp but experienced viewpoint:

Yes.

Because:

* Every energy based build is going to want a moderate to large engine, as are SRM based builds, because the heat sink space is extremely valuable.
* Speed is a critical factor in battles. In solo queue play, speed is required for success, as there's always a very real danger your team with simply run off in a random direction and you need to stay with them or die alone. The ability to react to changes on the battlefield is an absolute priority there.
* Extra tonnage on most mechs has decidedly diminishing returns on firepower. Nobody is doubling their firepower with this change.
* Speed is fun. Nobody likes trundling along at 50kph. It's boring.

I'm honestly unconvinced on the final point. People are so damn ecstatic about this change that I'm more than half convinced that they do not, as a general rule, enjoy or desire battles of maneuver or movement. Many folks are obsessed with drastically reducing the mobility of assault and heavy 'Mechs, and even many mediums. Nobody has even begun to suggest that perhaps maybe...just maybe...the mobility being stripped away from the engine should be available, at least in part, elsewhere for an opportunity cost - since spending multiple tons on it is not enough of an opportunity cost.

Who, exactly, is having so much fun going fast and being mobile that they're absolutely giddy with excitement to see it going away?

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Uhm... where do you get off thinking footspeed is "never the most ciritcal part of an engine upgrade?"

You buy bigger engines for more torso twist? Good for you pal, I've always bought them to go faster : /

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Jables McBarty, on 21 February 2017 - 03:24 PM, said:

#Annihilator2017?

Please

[Pjwned]

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.

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?

Because the reasonable assumption is that a more powerful engine is able to get up to the same speed faster than a less powerful engine, and since mechs don't have wheels with brakes then stopping power is also reliant on engine power.

It would also be pretty dumb as far as mechanics, you shouldn't have the same chassis take more time to build up speed & slow down with wildly different engine ratings.

Do you ever get tired of your insane hyperbole by the way? You just go completely off the rails with this **** and it's not convincing at all because it makes no sense.

Widowmaker1981, on 21 February 2017 - 01:47 PM, said:

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.

They could easily remove the accel & decel quirks but still leave it tied to engine rating.

We'll see though, maybe I'm wrong and mechs will have fixed accel & decel, which I don't think would be appropriate really.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 21 February 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:

Follow-up question: would you consider it an acceptable state of affairs if you turned out to be incorrect? If small-engine 'Mechs were significantly more common than large-engine 'Mechs, and larger engines were considered to be a 'noob trap' or a holdover from days when BESM existed?

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.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 February 2017 - 05:58 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

1453 R, on 21 February 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:

Follow-up question: would you consider it an acceptable state of affairs if you turned out to be incorrect? If small-engine 'Mechs were significantly more common than large-engine 'Mechs, and larger engines were considered to be a 'noob trap' or a holdover from days when BESM existed?


I'm honestly unconvinced on the final point. People are so damn ecstatic about this change that I'm more than half convinced that they do not, as a general rule, enjoy or desire battles of maneuver or movement. Many folks are obsessed with drastically reducing the mobility of assault and heavy 'Mechs, and even many mediums. Nobody has even begun to suggest that perhaps maybe...just maybe...the mobility being stripped away from the engine should be available, at least in part, elsewhere for an opportunity cost - since spending multiple tons on it is not enough of an opportunity cost.

Who, exactly, is having so much fun going fast and being mobile that they're absolutely giddy with excitement to see it going away?

We have no idea what the baseline agility is going to be for each tonnage level. It could be that PGI chooses the 300XL Dire Wolf as the 100 ton baseline, or the 400XL Kodiak. Perhaps the 360 Atlas or King Crab will be the new baseline. Who knows?

Until we know which it is, we have no idea which mechs will have their agility nerfed and which will have it buffed.

[l33tworks]

Kaeb Odellas, on 21 February 2017 - 06:14 PM, said:

We have no idea what the baseline agility is going to be for each tonnage level. It could be that PGI chooses the 300XL Dire Wolf as the 100 ton baseline, or the 400XL Kodiak. Perhaps the 360 Atlas or King Crab will be the new baseline. Who knows?

Until we know which it is, we have no idea which mechs will have their agility nerfed and which will have it buffed.

Std300 for sure. Which is why this system wont stick. You cant have all 100ton mechs move the same. Nor can you have all 75tonners move then same. or 74tonners etc...Its flawed even in concept.

[Kaeb Odellas]

l33tworks, on 21 February 2017 - 06:22 PM, said:

Std300 for sure. Which is why this system wont stick. You cant have all 100ton mechs move the same. Nor can you have all 75tonners move then same. or 74tonners etc...Its flawed even in concept.

Every Atlas has varying degrees of agility quirks. Every King Crab has +25% or +35% torso yaw speed. Half of the Kodiaks have agility quirks. These quirks are all going to be rolled into each variant's baseline agility, so while all Dire Wolves will move the same, all other Assaults will be more agile than the Dire Wolf to varying degrees.

For 75 tonners, all IS Orions and some Black Knights have agility quirks. Some TBR omnipods have minor agility quirks as well. There's nothing stopping PGI from manually tweaking every mechs' agility stats after the fact for flavor.

The new skill tree will also factor in here. You could choose to buff a mech's agility or not, depending on what you want to do with it. That may also differentiate mechs of the same weight from one another.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 21 February 2017 - 06:45 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Kaeb Odellas, on 21 February 2017 - 06:43 PM, said:

There's nothing stopping PGI from manually tweaking every mechs' agility stats after the fact for flavor.

The wording in the news post even implies as much!

[Dee Eight]

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. Perhaps now with this correction, they'll also un-nerf the twist angles on the dire and kodiak as well.

[Wintersdark]

1453 R, on 21 February 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:

Follow-up question: would you consider it an acceptable state of affairs if you turned out to be incorrect? If small-engine 'Mechs were significantly more common than large-engine 'Mechs, and larger engines were considered to be a 'noob trap' or a holdover from days when BESM existed?

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.

Quote

I'm honestly unconvinced on the final point. People are so damn ecstatic about this change that I'm more than half convinced that they do not, as a general rule, enjoy or desire battles of maneuver or movement. Many folks are obsessed with drastically reducing the mobility of assault and heavy 'Mechs, and even many mediums. Nobody has even begun to suggest that perhaps maybe...just maybe...the mobility being stripped away from the engine should be available, at least in part, elsewhere for an opportunity cost - since spending multiple tons on it is not enough of an opportunity cost.

Who, exactly, is having so much fun going fast and being mobile that they're absolutely giddy with excitement to see it going away?

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.

[Wintersdark]

l33tworks, on 21 February 2017 - 06:22 PM, said:

Std300 for sure. Which is why this system wont stick. You cant have all 100ton mechs move the same. Nor can you have all 75tonners move then same. or 74tonners etc...Its flawed even in concept.

300 for sure? Why? And why even bother saying STD?

Do you really understand how it works now? Have you read the post?

All 100 ton mechs do, outside of quirks, move exactly the same right now at a given speed.

In fact, ALL MECHS right now move exactly the same at any particular given speed, regardless of weight class. A light at 50kph moves exactly like an Atlas moves as 50kph.

PGI specifically said mechs with agility buffs to be competitive will have said agility buffs rolled into their profiles, with the given example that a Phoenix Hawk will be more agile than a Blackjack.

So, while mechs of a given tonnage will be similar, there's still variety in agility within a given tonnage. But mechs of different weight will actually handle differently.

Currently, a 70kph medium handles exactly like a 70kph heavy and a 70kph assault. After this, they'll all handle differently.

Edited by Wintersdark, 21 February 2017 - 08:11 PM.

[The Lost Boy]

Ill take my scortch going 72kph, (350)versus your scortch with a 250 ANY day. To the OP, speed is life. And lack of it makes positioning yourself an unforgiving task. I want my SPIRIT BEAR MASCing at 90. Personnally I thing the OP is nuts.

[Dee Eight]

Lemming of the BDA, on 21 February 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

Ill take my scortch going 72kph, (350)versus your scortch with a 250 ANY day. To the OP, speed is life. And lack of it makes positioning yourself an unforgiving task. I want my SPIRIT BEAR MASCing at 90. Personnally I thing the OP is nuts.

Agreed. I'm not going to downsize the engines of any of my speedier mechs just because they're fixing a mechlab flaw that's been in the game for years.

[Mortal2None]

Maybe they would make all internal engine heatsinks act as true dubs. (Instead of just the first ten) That makes the larger engine more valuable with the changes proposed and maybe makes everyone happier?

[Dogstar]

At least it does a lot to fix the imbalance between clan and IS, now clan mechs will only be faster, not faster and more twisty

[Skipmagnet]

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