30 replies to this topic

[1453 R]

All righty!

So as we begin moving into an era of MechWarrior Online’s history where no amount of engine power provides an increase to a given BattleMech’s mobility, I find myself wondering what can potentially be done to Bring Fast Back™. A matter most are not terribly concerned with, but frankly even without the engine decoupling fiasco, with new technology on the horizon it would be interesting to see more than simply weapons technology. Perhaps some new mobility systems could be implemented as well, under the assumption that performance which costs weight, space, or both would be more acceptable to the game at large.

I’ve been digging through Sarna, looking for possible ways and means to implement advanced or enhanced mobility systems into the game in a more interesting way that the engine-based formulas we’re currently using. Obviously there’s one standout technology that would be an excellent place to start: Triple-Strength Myomer

TSM is generally intended for punchy ‘Mechs in the tabletop rules, but even without fisticuffs it could be implemented in MWO as a mobility system, instead. I don’t know the specific TT rules for TSM, but I believe it’s something like one or two extra critslots per left/right location on the ‘Mech, thus requiring space. In MWO, TSM could potentially invert the desired ‘normal’ penalties to mobility from heat effects, causing a ‘Mech to gain increased acceleration, deceleration, turn/twist speeds, and arm speeds as it grows hotter. Of limited use to ‘Mechs that typically run cool, TSM would retain its normal exceptional usefulness to brawlers that tend to ride the red everywhere they go.

If the space requirements are not sufficient to balance out TSM and avoid making it a Mandatory Upgrade Item a’la Endo Steel, one could set the ‘base’ mobility performance of cold TSM some degree below standard myomer – a cold TSM ‘Mech doesn’t move as well as a cold standard myomer ‘Mech, meaning the TSM guy has to get some heat in the system before his ‘Mech performs up to par. Once the TSM guy is sufficiently toasty, however, he performs noticeably better than the standard myomer guy, allowing the pilot to create situations where he can outmaneuver his target.

Sadly, TSM is canonically incompatible with M.A.S.C., but as M.A.S.C. is a very narrowly deployed technology available to only an extremely small number of chassis, I don’t see this being much of an issue.

Another technology Quicksilver Kalasa mentioned in a different thread that might be assistful is the Heavy-Duty Gyroscope. In TT the HDG was pretty strictly a durability measure – it required double a standard gyro’s weight but was more resistant to critical destruction. Obviously this means jack-monkey squat in MWO and would be tricky to implement as it is. However, HDGs could potentially switch roles in this game. Heavy-Duty Gyroscopes being heavier and denser could allow them to be more resistant to movement-induced instabilities, allowing the pilot to push his machine harder than would otherwise be wise and allowing him to improve the overall performance of his ‘Mech.

Unlike TSM, this would not be a conditional, rise-and-fall performance increase, but a big flat chunk of improved mobility at the cost of a flat chunk of weight from the ‘Mech. Smaller engines have less weighty gyroscopes and thus less weighty HDGs (huzzah slowbies win again >_>), but even then, the HDG would allow a player interested in the ability to outmaneuver his foes the ability to trade some weight of his machine’s configuration for a performance increase.

Though it’s outside the current time scope to an extent (very limited prototypes available in 3067), the Actuator Enhancement System offers some interesting potential benefits. Implementation of AES would have to diverge pretty heavily from TT standards (no AES in only one arm, for example), but the system could allow pilots a fine-tuned ability to pick exactly which benefits they care about. As AES is split between ‘arm’ benefits and ‘leg’ benefits, these benefits could be introduced as separate options. “AES (Arm)” provides arm speed, and possibly an increased range of motion in the arms (and when the convergence nits inevitably push something through an Arm AES system could drastically improve performance of arm-mounted weaponry). Leg AES would improve handling and responsiveness from leg-related actions – namely acceleration, deceleration, and turnspeed. The AES system cannot affect twist speed of the ‘Mech, but this is just a price we’ll have to pay, I suppose.

The AES system is incompatible with basically everything, sadly, but such rules aren’t necessarily required for MWO if they turn out to be too restrictive.

The only other piece of technology directly related to (ground) mobility I can find on the books right just yet is the Supercharger, which can be boiled down to “torso-based M.A.S.C.”. Superchargers temporarily remove the safety limiters on the ‘Mech’s fusion engine (BECAUSE THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA AM I RYTE?) and enables it to perform above its specified safe operating limits, allowing for greater mobility. Ironic, how more power from the ‘Mech’s engine is supposed to allow for greater movement capability, isn’t it?

Regardless, Superchargers and M.A.S.C. are stackable, though doing so is supposed to be akin to injecting speed in one arm and meth in the other – you can, but the whole damn machine is likely to come apart at the seams sooner rather than later. Implementing Superchargers as written would likely be similar enough to M.A.S.C. implementation that I don’t honestly see it happening - you’re basically just adding redundant M.A.S.C. What could be interesting, however, is adding Superchargers as a more passive system – install on the ‘Mech, enjoy greater overall mobility at the cost of weight, a crit, and probably decreased heat dissipation as the supercharged engine produces more than the ‘Mech is used to. Combo with TSM? Maybe!

We could also look into the possibility of MWO-specific technologies that were not introduced in the tabletop game, given that the TT game was not concerned with the mobility of ‘Mechs. A few wild brainstorm ideas I had in this vein:

Actuated Frame – Competing with Endo Steel for an upgrade slot, the Actuated Frame upgrade builds additional servo systems, extra myomer connection points, and other mobility-enhancing systems directly into the ‘Mech’s superstructure. The system utilizes Endo Steel for its construction, but the weight of the extra components negates Endo’s weight savings while requiring Endo-level critslot investments, trading space (and also Endo weight) for mobility.

Overhauled Actuators – Conceptually similar to the AES, but directly replacing a ‘Mech’s actuator systems rather than augmenting them. Overhauled Actuators take up one extra crit slot per actuator per limb (consuming both free spaces in the legs regardless of not technically having enough room) to improve the performance of said limbs and improve accel, decel, turnspeed, and arm speed, but not twist speed. Cannot be piecemeal’d, the way AES can. The overall bulk of the Overhauled Actuator system requires extra weight equivalent to two jump jets of the appropriate weight class.

Improved Cockpit – Improved Cockpits take up the sole critical slot in the head to add improved control and handling equipment for the pilot, enabling a modest boost in ‘Mech responsiveness.

* * *

So that’s my brainstorm on how we might legitimately get back what we’re about to lose. Anyone else have any interesting ideas for mobility-enhancing FutureTech?

[SgtMagor]

Still Waiting, nuff said!

[Quicksilver Aberration]

OOOORRRR, you could take a mech that has better default responsiveness rather than trying to make your better machine overcome its only deficiencies. Crazy, I know.

That said, superchargers should just increase speed because from a labrat perspective they are better than MASC (smaller, typically lighter, don't make you immobile on a failed roll).

TSM would require some re-imaging since keeping within a heat threshold in a real time game is more complex than it is in TT.

Gyro types can control twist speed/radius.

AES can add maneuverability since giving them TComp capabilities seems a bit weird (myomer add on increases projectile speed would be lulz). Whether it be turn rate, accel, decel for legs or arm speed/radius for arms (much less useful in the arms, but meh).

There, now you have your options without creating any new tech.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 February 2017 - 09:42 AM.

[Alan Davion]

1453 R, on 28 February 2017 - 09:08 AM, said:

Another technology Quicksilver Kalasa mentioned in a different thread that might be assistful is the Heavy-Duty Gyroscope. In TT the HDG was pretty strictly a durability measure – it required double a standard gyro’s weight but was more resistant to critical destruction. Obviously this means jack-monkey squat in MWO and would be tricky to implement as it is. However, HDGs could potentially switch roles in this game. Heavy-Duty Gyroscopes being heavier and denser could allow them to be more resistant to movement-induced instabilities, allowing the pilot to push his machine harder than would otherwise be wise and allowing him to improve the overall performance of his ‘Mech.

Unlike TSM, this would not be a conditional, rise-and-fall performance increase, but a big flat chunk of improved mobility at the cost of a flat chunk of weight from the ‘Mech. Smaller engines have less weighty gyroscopes and thus less weighty HDGs (huzzah slowbies win again >_>), but even then, the HDG would allow a player interested in the ability to outmaneuver his foes the ability to trade some weight of his machine’s configuration for a performance increase.

So that’s my brainstorm on how we might legitimately get back what we’re about to lose. Anyone else have any interesting ideas for mobility-enhancing FutureTech?

Another possible way the HDG could be implemented would be a serious reduction in the body and screen shake a mech is subject to when hit with weapons like massed LRMs, Gauss Rifle or AC20s.

Seeing as, you know, it's a heavier gyro, it wouldn't be knocked out of whack nearly as easily as the normal one.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alan Davion, on 28 February 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:

Another possible way the HDG could be implemented would be a serious reduction in the body and screen shake a mech is subject to when hit with weapons like massed LRMs, Gauss Rifle or AC20s.

This would make it worthless, just like the gyro related module and skill tree components are. Screen shake is also not really a problem from Gauss/AC20s because they don't have the rapid fire capability to cause any issue, mass AC2s, dakka, and massed LRMs are the issue and that shouldn't require equipment to overcome. Stun locks are just bad mechanics.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 February 2017 - 09:47 AM.

[Metus regem]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 February 2017 - 09:38 AM, said:

That said, superchargers should just increase speed because from a labrat perspective they are better than MASC (smaller, typically lighter, don't make you immobile on a failed roll).

They are not with out their own dangers... a failed PSR (Pilot Skill Roll) means you take an engine hit...

So yes if you fail both PSR on a Super Charger and MASC, you are taking an Engine hit (+5 heat for first engine hit, +10 heat for second engine hit, mission killed for third engine hit) and are immobilized. On top of that, a Super Charger must be mounted in a location that has engine crits, unlike MASC.

Still I do love the Gauntlet Omnimech that uses both MASC and a Super Charger... they are stupid fast in TT... 5/8 (13)

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Metus regem, on 28 February 2017 - 09:50 AM, said:

They are not with out their own dangers... a failed PSR (Pilot Skill Roll) means you take an engine hit...

I'd rather take an engine hit than be immobilized due to leg actuator criticals (especially hip crits). I may generate more heat but at least I can still move and potentially stay alive longer to do more damage.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 February 2017 - 09:53 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 February 2017 - 09:45 AM, said:

This would make it worthless, just like the gyro related module and skill tree components are. Screen shake is also not really a problem from Gauss/AC20s because they don't have the rapid fire capability to cause any issue, mass AC2s, dakka, and massed LRMs are the issue and that shouldn't require equipment to overcome. Stun locks are just bad mechanics.

I agree, they shouldn't require equipment to overcome, but the fact such things still exist in this game means there needs to be some new and convoluted way to get around them. Hence my suggestion.

You know, seeing as how PGI can't do anything sensible with this game.

[MechaBattler]

TSM seems pretty straightforward.

Could give heavy gyro better turn rate, take less penalty from hill climbing, able to recover quicker from landing, and might as well throw in less screen shake.

I agree with Quicksilver on the supercharger. Should be purely speed bonus.

[Metus regem]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 February 2017 - 09:53 AM, said:

I'd rather take an engine hit than be immobilized due to leg actuator criticals (especially hip crits). I may generate more heat but at least I can still move and potentially stay alive longer to do more damage.

I was just highlighting that they were not with out their own dangers, something that you had skipped over in the post I had quoted... Not everyone is up on the rules after all.

[Mister Glitchdragon]

My understanding is that a given mech's mobility will be improvable via the skill tree.

[Rogue Jedi]

if Mechs are not responsive enough for you then take a Mech with MASC, that already massivly increases agility.

I would love to see TSM, but without mele combat it would not be living up to anything like its full potential, also if TSM was implemented I think it should be limited to certain Mechs, it should not be something that every Timber Wolf and Kodiak puts on, perhaps make it an IS only upgrade ^{(I do not recall hearing of Clan TSM)} which can only go on Mechs with hand actuators (and therefore the potential for mele)?

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 February 2017 - 09:38 AM, said:

OOOORRRR, you could take a mech that has better default responsiveness rather than trying to make your better machine overcome its only deficiencies. Crazy, I know.
...

Going to try and not get into the other thread here, but the intent is to be able to take a 'Mech you like and enable you to like it more. That thing we all do in the 'MechLab, save with (currently) a severe deficit of mobility-related technologies.

Mister Glitchdragon, on 28 February 2017 - 10:05 AM, said:

My understanding is that a given mech's mobility will be improvable via the skill tree.

Because 1% arm speed nodes drastically change the handling of any machine, yes indeed they do.

Anyways.

To concerns of TSM not being 'worth it' without melee: we're never getting melee. Not the way everyone figures, with every 'Mech in the game punching and kicking and football-tackling and Beam Saber Duel-ing and whatever. This has been confirmed, it'd require them to rip out and redo every single 'Mech animation rig in the entire game. If melee ever shows up, it'd be on very specific 'Mechs designed around melee weapons, and it would only work for those melee weapons.

TSM does offer a speed increase, and could offer a handling increase, both of which would not be flat values but would instead be based on current heat levels. Something like -5% at ambient heat, up to 20% extra at 75% heat or wherever you cap the effect of TSM at. Make it linear, or linear-ish, and let people decide how hot they want to run, or how much they want to heat up pre-fight with laser fire or whatever, to get their TSM bonuses primed. It'd potentially be an interesting addition to the game even without robo-fisting.

Heavy gyros being more durable/reducing screen shake is pointless. Gyros can't be damaged in MWO, and screen shake is a nonissue for most folks. Allowing different classifications of gyro to affect the 'Mech's movement systems could give us back some of the customizability we're losing to the engine redux, though, and do so in a way which lets people stick to their 200STDs in their Hunchbacks the way everyone says the incoming new system is supposed to heavily encourage. Yeah, it's playing fast and loose with the tech, but MWO is not TT. The tabletop game didn't care about mobility systems because mobility didn't exist in TT, but mobility is astoundingly important in MWO, and it makes sense that engineers in this 'verse would create systems to improve it, does it not?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 28 February 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

'Mech you like and enable you to like it more.

And there is the rub, the sole source of the problem with regards to balance, diversity, and a fairly free customization system. A game with GOOD class-esque balance HAS to ensure there is a limit to how much you like something when playing it. There HAS to be weaknesses for a given mech, and if that weakness is mobility, then enabling you a way to mitigate that weakness (especially if the loss in free tonnage is well worth the negation) then what is the point of that weakness other than a stupid tonnage/crit tax?

Sorry, but this game doesn't need more open ended customization, it needs less.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 February 2017 - 11:09 AM.

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 February 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

And there is the rub, the sole source of the problem with regards to balance, diversity, and a fairly free customization system. A game with GOOD class-esque balance HAS to ensure there is a limit to how much you like something when playing it. There HAS to be weaknesses for a given mech, and if that weakness is mobility, then enabling you a way to mitigate that weakness (especially if the loss in free tonnage is well worth the negation) then what is the point of that weakness other than a stupid tonnage/crit tax?

Sorry, but this game doesn't need more open ended customization, it needs less.

So adjust the new technology until the trade-off of weight/space is a decision against the improved mobility.

Why, why, why, WHYYY are ultracomps so unbelievably against moving? Take it out of the engine, take it out of the skill tree, don't introduce any new weight/crit-eating, firepower-reducing FutureTech that might put some of it back in...lordafriggin'mighty, people!

Beh. Gods above this whole thing leaves such an awful taste in my mouth.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 28 February 2017 - 11:16 AM, said:

Why, why, why, WHYYY are ultracomps so unbelievably against moving?

Why, why, why, WHYYY do you continually use strawmen?

We aren't against moving, we want two things:

• There to be more incentive to actually not take the biggest engine you can possibly fit because small engines have too many negatives currently
  
• There to be more incentive to take different mechs, and mobility is one of those things that can help, but honestly I want more (like stronger equipment restrictions like MW4 had).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 February 2017 - 11:20 AM.

[MechaBattler]

I don't see anything wrong with 1453R's suggestions. As long as their are trade offs for the gains in agility or mobility.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

I just want to put a supercharger and MASC on my Executioner at the same time.

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 February 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

Why, why, why, WHYYY do you continually use strawmen?

We aren't against moving, we want two things:

• There to be more incentive to actually not take the biggest engine you can possibly fit because small engines have too many negatives currently
  
• There to be more incentive to take different mechs, and mobility is one of those things that can help, but honestly I want more (like stronger equipment restrictions like MW4 had).

Then what do people do with 'Mechs they can no longer properly utilize, after you've locked down the 'MechLab and forced stock or near-stock fits in an attempt to enforce 'Mech identity and make the Mech Select button the only button that matters in said lab?

Do we all just sell our collections down to the five or six that actually make sense, in a system where altering a 'Mech's characteristics in anything but superficial ways is no longer permitted?

What's wrong with introducing technology - that takes up weight and space, and thus impinges on weaponry, ammunition, heat dissipation, and all those other non-stock things one can devote weight and space to - that allows one to moderately improve a 'Mech's movement profile? If we can bolt nonstandard weapons and nonstandard sensors and nonstandard ammo and nonstandard everything else in there, why not nonstandard movement overhauls?

MechaBattler, on 28 February 2017 - 11:26 AM, said:

I don't see anything wrong with 1453R's suggestions. As long as their are trade offs for the gains in agility or mobility.

This is the intent, yeah. Take stuff that stops you from taking other stuff to get some mobility back. Apparently the worst idea since Scientology, but I'm not really sure why.

Edited by 1453 R, 28 February 2017 - 11:49 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 28 February 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

after you've locked down the 'MechLab and forced stock or near-stock fits

Man, you and these strawmen, where did I say near-stock? That would be disastrous because of the level 1 tech variants in the game (and some terrible level 2 stuff). That however does mean mechs are more restricted and thus easier to balance since you don't have as many abusive builds to consider and have more control over how flexible a mech can be.

1453 R, on 28 February 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

Do we all just sell our collections down to the five or six that actually make sense

Lol, I could probably get away with this many right now for comp depending on the restrictions that attempt to force diversity into the drop decs. ACH-*, HBK-IIC, HBK-IIC-A, NGR-D, TBR-S, KDK-3; done.

1453 R, on 28 February 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

What's wrong with introducing technology

Nothing wrong with introducing canon technology, as long as you aren't specifically pigeon holing it into a purpose that it shouldn't and as long as things like KDK-3 can't take it to make up for their inherent mobility weaknesses post-Skill Tree.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 February 2017 - 11:59 AM.