358 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

pacifica812, on 05 March 2017 - 03:44 AM, said:

Oh I wish that was the deal, because then I wouldn't have to worry about a light mech slowing down like a truck on the PTS.

There is that.

However, even a 20 ton machine is a 20 ton machine.

Have you ever tried to stop a 2 ton truck without air brakes?
Ever tried to move half a ton horizontally on a non-motorized crane slide?

The amount of force required to just get the crane to move or to stop is tremendous, sometimes when it does start to move it will pull you with it, which can really be a problem if you're on a rolling set of stairs, even with the brake applied.

High speed plus hefty weight should be difficult to stop. Name one car that stops on a dime from going 127 kph without adverse effects on the driver, and I will point out the belt that dug into his body enough to leave bruises or the guy that flew out the front window.

Then again, it really depends too. Is the mech having to slow terribly from being full speed even when it is low, or just because it was high speed? That's where it really matters. For that matter is turning speed affected by the actual velocity, or by what "100%" is considered to be? Or is turning speed affected by velocity at all? Because before it wasn't, even though it should be.

If a two legged machine went from 150 kph to an instant stop like Locusts used to do... it would face plant right into the ground.

If you don't believe me, try it. Get on a skateboard, hitch a ride by hooking onto a truck's tailgate and once you hit even half that speed, try to stop on a dime.

Just uh, aim for the grass and wear protective gear; it's gonna hurt. In Battletech cockpits have smashed in from doing it.
Here's a specific tale.

Edited by Koniving, 05 March 2017 - 03:57 AM.

[pacifica812]

@Koniving

All true by all means, and I guess the part of the problem that I'm gonna have to accept is, that lore was written by 20th century people, mixing 20th cent tech with sci-fi 30th cent tech, where interstellar space travel is somehow possible yet certain contemporary issues on the other hand still remain.

So it comes down to fiction mixed with some real life physics, the proportion of which lays in the hand of the author. And in such manner the mechs came to life in MWO. I accepted the game, its mechanics, I learned to love it I still do, and now I am about to step into the shadow casted in the light of the mobility changes (again on the author's prerogative), from which I'll have to crawl if I want to re-love the game... enjoy myself again.

It can be frustrating, especially when the reason being for me to play is to have fun, rather than diving into a science project trying to find a cure for an incurable illness and stomping into a dead end, and then tracing your steps back.

I appreciate your views and comments, hope you can understand mine

[MovinTarget]

So many of the challenges in implenting this game stem from our preconceptions from TT and lore which, as was rightfully pointed out, based on the authors attention to detail and inclusion of real physics and stuff.

TT simplified movement, pilot and gunnery mechanics such that a playing field was much more level and success/failure literally could come down to a roll of a dice... not saying it always did, i know some guys developed tactics in TT and executed manuevers, but there was still the rng of the dice that simply does not/cannot exist in a RT/FPS...

I think part of the challenge nowadays is fact that we as MW/BT consumers have become a bit more discerning and have so much content to compare against mwo, even if previous games had their own inherent flaws and inaccuracies. Add to that the fact it wasn't drop $50-$80 into the game and thats it. Many people have put hundreds (and a few in the thousands) into this game... yeah peeps gonna be a tad bit sensitive.

So the bottom line is that PGI has the unenviable position of having to walk a tightrope between those that crave realism (i.e. inertia) and those that would suspend disbelief (multi-ton mechs stop on a dime) for the sake of honoring the lore/TT...

Neither side is wrong, but PGI has to keep them all happy.

Edited by MovinTarget, 05 March 2017 - 07:23 AM.

[Dee Eight]

Kulu, on 04 March 2017 - 10:46 PM, said:

Make Mechwarrior great again

Shouldn't that be done with a mech that has small hands ?

[Dee Eight]

Ery, on 05 March 2017 - 03:27 AM, said:

Where are the C-Bill Consumables from the events? Were they also exchanged in C-Bills? Cant find any info about it.

The pts isn't a correct translation. The cbill consumables weren't copied from your account because they no longer have "improved uav,coolshot, strikes" under the PTS... its all thepriority versions, either as MC or Cbills. Also they over-refund the gxp and cbills from modules. When I load the live server, I have about 60 million cbills and nearly 400 million of modules... on the PTS I have 2.3 BILLION cbills.

[Ery]

On PTR you get normaly 2 KKK CBills, 2 KK MC an 2 KK GXP as initial balance for testing.

To be exact, I'm talking about Improved UAV, Improved Air Strike and Cool Shot 6.
Since the parts in the form no longer exist in the future, it is understandable that the parts are not transferred. However, it should be ensured that we get the equivalent value in C-Bills.

Edit
It's not about the PTR. It goes later to the LifeServer. If PGI forget the things now, who says it on the LifeServer its better...?

[burning wisky]

My conclusion after which I have read both skill tree threads is,
PGI = no more Quirks ---- Player = noooo some Mech need it, if they do that, i stop playing
PGI = weaponskilltree ---- Player = stop boating PGI
PGI = fix it ( blue parts is for all weapons and now you save some pionts and it is easy to get 2 weapons) ---- Player = the new one is not better , memememe

arm pitch, Hill climb, speed retention etc is blocking the way on both sides that is bad, i know ( it cost 5 point ) CHOOSE WISE !!!!!

But if every one can pick up all the poins he want, it is useless to have a skill tree. Some more points will be great to get some sensor stuff, etc.


If they fix the real problem of the Game "HEAT" everyone is crying my mech is running to "HOT" i can fire owny 1-2 Alphashots befor i overheat, and it take to long to cool down !!!!!!!!

[LordLosh]

Just wish it was more basic with single columns for same type of buffs with a point penalty making you spend an extra point or progressive point penalty after you spend multiple points on a single column.
But i don't know this would change everything so dramatically might be good? I fear the meta players would take only a few weeks to break it down and we would have a new "norm" build point wise that just becomes standard. Much like how radar dep and seismic where only modules that mattered.
Even more worried that mechs that didn't have any perks to them and dominated will become overpowered giants. As its still fairly easy to get it back to where it was mastered wise in the old system with some nice armor buffs or weapons buffs.

[SuperFunkTron]

burning wisky, on 05 March 2017 - 07:17 AM, said:

My conclusion after which I have read both skill tree threads is,
PGI = no more Quirks ---- Player = noooo some Mech need it, if they do that, i stop playing
PGI = weaponskilltree ---- Player = stop boating PGI
PGI = fix it ( blue parts is for all weapons and now you save some pionts and it is easy to get 2 weapons) ---- Player = the new one is not better , memememe

This sounds very accurate. Lots of whining about things that they specifically changed in response to previous complaints.

Quote

arm pitch, Hill climb, speed retention etc is blocking the way on both sides that is bad, i know ( it cost 5 point ) CHOOSE WISE !!!!!

But if every one can pick up all the poins he want, it is useless to have a skill tree. Some more points will be great to get some sensor stuff, etc.

LordLosh, on 05 March 2017 - 07:28 AM, said:

Just wish it was more basic with single columns for same type of buffs with a point penalty making you spend an extra point or progressive point penalty after you spend multiple points on a single column.

Edit, this came in literally as I was typing.

Those less useful nodes are the equivalent to nodes costing more than 1 point an are there to intentionally increase investment costs. For those fighting for a more linear, costly tree, you are really fighting for a lousy deal that would reduce all those "unwanted" benefits for those of us who don't mind them, just so you can get a simple tree. Is thinking a game really that off putting?

Quote

If they fix the real problem of the Game "HEAT" everyone is crying my mech is running to "HOT" i can fire owny 1-2 Alphashots befor i overheat, and it take to long to cool down !!!!!!!!

I really like that Heat is is coming in as a major factor and that laser boats are forced to put a lot of effort into upgrading heat management nodes. It forces more consideration of mech placement, laser loadout, and which lasers to shoot at a specific range and how much they can push the system or are forced to succumb to it.


More than anything, I think the new system forces a lot more balance through subtler means than the current system. The changes don't all need to make us feel that we are getting improved mechs bu rather that the game play and overall balance are improve. Restrictions are a great thing when they help define how things work. When looking at the new "restrictions" in the PTS, I can see more character being pulled out o upgrade decisions. It will need specific mech balance soon, but I think they have a good foundation becoming more solid here.

Edited by SuperFunkTron, 05 March 2017 - 07:48 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Koniving, on 05 March 2017 - 03:54 AM, said:

There is that.

However, even a 20 ton machine is a 20 ton machine.

Have you ever tried to stop a 2 ton truck without air brakes?
Ever tried to move half a ton horizontally on a non-motorized crane slide?

The amount of force required to just get the crane to move or to stop is tremendous, sometimes when it does start to move it will pull you with it, which can really be a problem if you're on a rolling set of stairs, even with the brake applied.

High speed plus hefty weight should be difficult to stop. Name one car that stops on a dime from going 127 kph without adverse effects on the driver, and I will point out the belt that dug into his body enough to leave bruises or the guy that flew out the front window.

Then again, it really depends too. Is the mech having to slow terribly from being full speed even when it is low, or just because it was high speed? That's where it really matters. For that matter is turning speed affected by the actual velocity, or by what "100%" is considered to be? Or is turning speed affected by velocity at all? Because before it wasn't, even though it should be.

If a two legged machine went from 150 kph to an instant stop like Locusts used to do... it would face plant right into the ground.

If you don't believe me, try it. Get on a skateboard, hitch a ride by hooking onto a truck's tailgate and once you hit even half that speed, try to stop on a dime.

Just uh, aim for the grass and wear protective gear; it's gonna hurt. In Battletech cockpits have smashed in from doing it.
Here's a specific tale.

Forward speed affects turning rate on the pts (and it does on live too, in fact) but the impact is larger on the PTS.

I've always used this, but I think many are unaware. It's not linear, and it's a factor of % of max speed. Slow to roughly 75% of max speed and you turn much faster.

The easiest way to play with this is by using throttle decay. Start a turn, and let go of the throttle for the first half your turn, then hit it again for the rest. You make use of the decel/accel - you're NOT stopping, just hitting a low of around 60-75% momentarily mid turn. This MASSIVELY increases turn rate and allows even large Mechs to turn quite quickly.

I use it in live when piloting a direwolf to keep lights in my firing arcs, then started doing it with everything on the PTS because the impact is so significant.

In a light, despite a momentary speed loss, it makes you HARDER to hit as your velocity and turn rate are constantly changing. Much, much harder to lead and predict position.

[MovinTarget]

The funny thing is that a lot of people make there observations based on their own experience, which makes sense, but they don't consider that if it makes it harder to be an OP killing machine, it is applicable to the enemy as well... hence longer TTK plus opportunity for greater build diversity which, I think, are their two biggest goals here...

[Weeny Machine]

Wintersdark, on 05 March 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

Forward speed affects turning rate on the pts (and it does on live too, in fact) but the impact is larger on the PTS.

I've always used this, but I think many are unaware. It's not linear, and it's a factor of % of max speed. Slow to roughly 75% of max speed and you turn much faster.

The easiest way to play with this is by using throttle decay. Start a turn, and let go of the throttle for the first half your turn, then hit it again for the rest. You make use of the decel/accel - you're NOT stopping, just hitting a low of around 60-75% momentarily mid turn. This MASSIVELY increases turn rate and allows even large Mechs to turn quite quickly.

I use it in live when piloting a direwolf to keep lights in my firing arcs, then started doing it with everything on the PTS because the impact is so significant.

In a light, despite a momentary speed loss, it makes you HARDER to hit as your velocity and turn rate are constantly changing. Much, much harder to lead and predict position.

I know, and it is good way to turn. Howevever, now comes the problem: the relatively low accel rates for lights brings them back right into the firing arc of a turning heavy and faster assault - especially if the enemy pilot has enough brains to move backwards away from you

In which bad position the light mech class is shown again this weekend on the live server. In a lot of matches were 0-1 lights. Sometimes a whooping 2 light mechs. Mediums were in a somewhat better state numberwise. Heavies on the other hand often 6-8.
Seeing things on the PTS, I must say that PGI is about to repeat that mistake.

Ah well, why do I write that anymore? It is wasted time. I will just take a break with HBS to scratch my BT itch.

Edited by Bush Hopper, 05 March 2017 - 07:59 AM.

[MovinTarget]

Its not wasted time, we just can't expect pgi to make daily tweaks. We know they are taking in feedback and they are collecting their own data as well...

[Koniving]

Wintersdark, on 05 March 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

Forward speed affects turning rate on the pts (and it does on live too, in fact) but the impact is larger on the PTS.

I've always used this, but I think many are unaware. It's not linear, and it's a factor of % of max speed. Slow to roughly 75% of max speed and you turn much faster.

The easiest way to play with this is by using throttle decay. Start a turn, and let go of the throttle for the first half your turn, then hit it again for the rest. You make use of the decel/accel - you're NOT stopping, just hitting a low of around 60-75% momentarily mid turn. This MASSIVELY increases turn rate and allows even large Mechs to turn quite quickly.

I use it in live when piloting a direwolf to keep lights in my firing arcs, then started doing it with everything on the PTS because the impact is so significant.

In a light, despite a momentary speed loss, it makes you HARDER to hit as your velocity and turn rate are constantly changing. Much, much harder to lead and predict position.

The reason I ask, is the game has three settings in regards to movement.
Turn rate Slow
Turn rate Medium
Turn rate Fast.
With slow, medium and fast referring to a percentage of the throttle bar (low ranges, medium ranges, high ranges). Each of these have a percentage value for the turn speed. Each is set at 100% on live, unless it is a mech with a slower than normal turn speed. Or at least that is the assumption.

To me, it would make sense that the turn speed be at a lower setting for high throttle... or more sensible, for higher velocities. Of course this could be an independent control from the game's own inertia mechanics for velocity and changes in direction at X speeds in which case lower percentages may be used as additional, non-physics methods of controlling turn speed.

Hence why I thought it to be worth asking. Honestly PGI originally had the mechs very sluggish in movement, I miss it and most people I share closed beta vids with wonder why we don't have 'that' game... the one that feels like a simulator rather than an arcade shooter.

It could just as easily be that the turn rates refer to an analog "power level", in which case PGI needs to hurry up and implement it. "Max power" turning can really suck when you want to have a little more control over your turns. I have the analog ability. I want to be able to use it.

Bush Hopper, on 05 March 2017 - 07:57 AM, said:

I know, and it is good way to turn. Howevever, now comes the problem: the relatively low accel rates for lights brings them back right into the firing arc of a turning heavy and faster assault - especially if the enemy pilot has enough brains to move backwards away from you

How slow are we talking? Compared to fastest engine possible on live? Compared to a stock or reasonable engine on live?
The reason I ask is the Urbanmech in the video takes off as quickly as a Locust does.
Is it because the overall maximum speed is low? Or does the Urbanmech reach max speed that fast regardless of the engine or the max speed?

Edited by Koniving, 05 March 2017 - 08:42 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Koniving, on 05 March 2017 - 08:34 AM, said:

The reason I ask, is the game has three settings in regards to movement.
Turn speed Slow
Turn speed Medium
Turn speed Fast.
With slow, medium and fast referring to a percentage of the throttle bar (low ranges, medium ranges, high ranges). Each of these have a percentage value for the turn speed. Each is set at 100% on live, unless it is a mech with a slower than normal turn speed.

In the PTS, it's pretty noticable based on where your current speed is (not throttle setting, but speed as a percentage of max speed). It allows tight maneuvers even by otherwise cumbersome mechs if the pilot steps up and manages velocity during the turn. You don't need to slow much at all to get a much tighter turn, and here's somewhere a strong pilot can outperform a poor one. Just stay at max speed, and an opponent who manages their speed while turning can outperform them in the same mech.

Quote

To me, it would make sense that the turn speed be at a lower setting for high throttle... or more sensible, for higher velocities. Of course this could be an independent control from the game's own inertia mechanics for velocity and changes in direction at X speeds in which case lower percentages may be used as additional, non-physics methods of controlling turn speed.

Yes, slower turn speed at higher velocities - again, as a percentage of max speed, so fast mechs benefit rather than suffering - they're still going fast when turning really quickly.

Quote

Hence why I thought it to be worth asking. Honestly PGI originally had the mechs very sluggish in movement, I miss it and most people I share closed beta vids with wonder why we don't have 'that' game... the one that feels like a simulator rather than an arcade shooter.

They're not more sluggish than a moderate engined mech on live. Roughly around a 300-rated engine at 65t. It can seem like they are if you only turn at max speed, but I feel this is a really good thing overall. Raising the pilot skill ceiling is a good thing.

Quote

How slow are we talking? Compared to fastest engine possible on live? Compared to a stock or reasonable engine on live?
The reason I ask is the Urbanmech in the video takes off as quickly as a Locust does.
Is it because the overall maximum speed is low? Or does the Urbanmech reach max speed that fast regardless of the engine or the max speed?

Acceleration is a fixed value visible on the PTS. So, a slow mech with the same acceleration value will hit max speed faster, but not accelerate faster. Locusts accelerate MUCH faster than Urbanmechs, nearly twice as fast, but their max speed is way higher too.

[unskilled values]

Simply put:

For an extreme comparison, the Urbanmech sports and acceleration of 47.7kph/s. So, in 1 second, it's at 47.7kph, 2 seconds it's at 95.4kph, which is just shy of it's 97kph maximum. That urbanmech decelerates at 81.6kph/s, so a full stop takes a little over a second.

The Locust accelerates at 84.6kph/s. In 1 second, it's doing 84.6kph, 2 seconds it's doing 153.9kph (top speed). Locust's decelerate at 182.5kph/s, so the Locust can drop to a full stop in less than a second.

It's scaled a bit, though, at high speed - after 70% speed, both acceleration and deceleration are reduced slightly. I'm unsure of the displayed value - if it's accel at max speed or stop? In practice, the *unskilled* locust still hits max speed in less than two seconds.

---

Unskilled, doing timing runs on the runway at River City, I'm finding my Locust does a full 360@ 153kph in ~4s. Drop to 110kph, and it does it in 3s. Around 75kph you're getting to 2s, continuing to improve to 0kph, but gains lower than around 80kph are pretty minor.

Given the acceleration rates, you can get down to ~80kph and back up in a tiny fraction of a second in a locust, so you're not any more vulnerable.


Skills make a massive difference to times, of course.


Sadly, my video editing skills are not up to task to put up comparison videos, but it'd be awesome if someone did that.

[Wintersdark]

Bush Hopper, on 05 March 2017 - 07:57 AM, said:

I know, and it is good way to turn. Howevever, now comes the problem: the relatively low accel rates for lights brings them back right into the firing arc of a turning heavy and faster assault - especially if the enemy pilot has enough brains to move backwards away from you

In which bad position the light mech class is shown again this weekend on the live server. In a lot of matches were 0-1 lights. Sometimes a whooping 2 light mechs. Mediums were in a somewhat better state numberwise. Heavies on the other hand often 6-8.
Seeing things on the PTS, I must say that PGI is about to repeat that mistake.

Ah well, why do I write that anymore? It is wasted time. I will just take a break with HBS to scratch my BT itch.

As I've said, I think lighter mechs need more agility than heavier mechs, for all the reasons we agree on.

However, I will say, there's a problem here.

If your light mech can simply run in circles around a bigger mech and stay out of it's firing arcs, that tends to lead to play that really doesn't sit well with anyone but the light pilot. I respect that lights in particular need some help, they're the least played class and the weakest of the lot, but it's a dangerous line to cross making them literally invincible vs. a slower target. They DO need lots of agility, but they need to use that to actually outmaneuver utilizing terrain and cover, hitting and fading, rather than simply circling their target.

I've never advocated that Assaults should simply win fights vs. lights, and that can be an issue. I'm certainly not one of those ridiculous "lights are OP" guys. Just that people need to understand that it's a very difficult balance to strike, and crossing that boundary to where lights can simply auto-win is bad as it leads to poor gameplay overall.

Edited by Wintersdark, 05 March 2017 - 09:07 AM.

[Wintersdark]

More timing, still using unskilled only:

Direwolf: roughly 14 seconds for a max speed (lol@dwf max speed) 360, down to 10s at 70% speed.

Thats... well, that's a pretty major difference.

More, with a better stopwatch:

BLR-1G: 10.4s max speed, 8.4s at 70%
Lets compare for lols while I'm at it, and add a full mobility skill tree:
8.7s max speed turn, 6.9 at 70%

Edited by Wintersdark, 05 March 2017 - 09:23 AM.

[Xoxim SC]

To begin, I have not personally tested this system out, but I have watched streamers fiddle with it.

To me it seems far to overly convoluted. I'm all for customization, options and such, but only in my RPGs. I feel like I'm staring at the Path of Exile's (PoE) skill tree when I look at this..... mess (nothing against PoEs skill tree).

I feel that quirks should be eliminated, keep the mobility system engine specific, and call it a day. I don't even feel like I'm being rewarded with anything by unlocking something that grants me a whopping 1% to whatever.

Edited by Todd Lightbringer, 05 March 2017 - 09:19 AM.

[Koniving]

Wintersdark, on 05 March 2017 - 09:04 AM, said:

If your light mech can simply run in circles around a bigger mech and stay out of it's firing arcs, that tends to lead to play that really doesn't sit well with anyone but the light pilot. I respect that lights in particular need some help, they're the least played class and the weakest of the lot, but it's a dangerous line to cross making them literally invincible vs. a slower target. They DO need lots of agility, but they need to use that to actually outmaneuver utilizing terrain and cover, hitting and fading, rather than simply circling their target.

This is simply "Counter play."

[MovinTarget]

My expectation for light pilots versus assault pilots if all else is constant(?)... i.e. no outside interference, etc.

Good light vs bad assault -> light should have an edge but not auto win
Bad light vs good assault -> assault should have edge but not auto win
Bad light vs bad assault -> i would suspect the assault win this on sheer firepower unless he kills himself
Good light vs good assault - > should be about a draw

Of course this is all in theory...