10 replies to this topic

[T R I A S]

Edits Ideas and Solutions from the discussion on reddit:
https://www.reddit.c...ility_is_a_bad/

Not Yes vs. No, the middle way by diminishing returns
A possible way would be to give engines a diminishing return in agility as it is with the weight. Extreme engine sizes would still be fast and agile but not as agile as they were. If the curve of diminishing returns is made well you still can choose speed and agility combined but the extremes are way more unified.
Undersized engines would get a buff, oversized a nerf but in the middle is still room to choose from.
Of course the curves for the diminishing returns must be done by weight class.


Original Post
Feeling and the tradeoff
The most important thing is that each mech feels different and they should.
Speed and agility are a big part of this feeling.
If you decouple them a major part of the individual feeling is lost.
Engine size is a tradeoff. You trade Speed and agility for tonnage.
With agility becoming a non factor it is only speed vs. tonnage.

The Business Model
I don't get it why you want to make all Mechs more unified. It's the diversity that drives people to buy different Mechs.
I have 250 Mechs covering pretty much every combination of weight and hardpoints. If you unify them and future Mechs why should i spend money again?
I won't, you want to devalue my diverse purchases.

You will pretty much exlude all Omnimechs with an oversized engine from the game.
Speed is negatable when you are not way to slow. To fast only hurts your armament.
This is why the Night Gyr is so strong, it is slow but it's enough if your positioning is ok.
Other Mechs like Kit Fox and Adder are slow and not as agile as faster Mechs but they have a lot of free tonnage for their weight class.
This is not a problem when you play them like medium mechs. They won't be good brawlers/assassins with more agility because they still lack speed.
Without the agility there is literally no reason to use the Linebacker, the speed is nice but the real reason to play it is its agility.
When i play Linebacker i want to play a fast and agile Heavy. Without agility I would take my Hunchback 2C.

Battlemechs loose a lot of customization.
The hardpoints of a Battlemech dictate the possible loadouts.
Right now you choose between cooling, ammo and engine size. Ammo will be adjusted as required or by experience.
This leaves people with the choice between cooling and engine size.
With the lost agility people will only use the engine with the minimum speed that is absolutely required.
They will pack more or heavier weapons... I thought you wanted to increase the TTK (Time to Kill).

Gameplay will become more static
The decupling of agility reduces the agility of a lot of mechs. Combined with the low baseline agility of the Mechs from PTS2 the problem increases.
I know it's more realistic but it will hurt gameplay. We talk about Battletech... It is not realistic anyway so this is no argument for me, the health of the gameplay is.
Effective usage of cover in this game is mandatory. You need a certain agility to peek shoot and hide or to outmaneuver in a brawl. The agility at the Live Server is pretty good.
The lack of agility will result in two gameplay styles - LRM Boating and Jumpsniping.
Maybe a third option is dakka (AC's) because when you can't return to cover fast enough why not stare them down with dakka.
Laser Boats can't peek effective, bigger brawlers are not agile enough.

Brawling will die
Brawl will be obsolete or at least not be fun. The Atlas AS7-S is one of the most powerfull Brawlers in the game, if you can get in position.
I run mine with a 350 standard engine.
Without the agility i can't mitigate damage as effective because the torso twist speed is to low and I will be outmaneuvered because of the slow turn rate.
Brawlers need speed AND agility. Speed alone won't do the trick.

Poor Lights
Already hurt hard by the rescale, this will hurt them even more.
There are three types of light gameplay - brawler, midrange skirmisher and sniper.
All of them will be... dead (hmm, i mean even more dead than now)? At least at higher tiers of gameplay.
Good players shoot very precise and lights have not a lot of armor. The only things that keep them alive is speed and agility.
They need to stop on a dime accelerate at the blink of an eye and maneuver erratic to not be predictable.
The only one that doesn't need agility is the jumpsniping one.

Torso twisting
You want higher TTK (Time to Kill). By reducing torso twist speed you will reduce it even more because damage can't be spread as effective.

The next LRMageddon
I like the "missle spread" skill for SRM's.
But nerfed agility combined with a tighter missle spread will be devastating.
Please remove it from the new skill tree or make it SRM's only.

22.750 Klicks for me
To skill my 250 Mechs i need to klick 22.750 times, really?
You are wasting my time!

Skill Tree Cost
I'm a module swapper. This means the refund of the modules won't by far cover my cost to remaster my mechs.
... this makes me angry and should not be the case.

Skill Tree Choices
I wont be able to achieve the same bonuses on PTS2 as on the Live Server, I don't like that.
The Tree should give me the possibility to achieve the same bonuses with the Points spent.
If I want to be better in some section I should have a tradeoff but my Mech should not have worse bonuses than at the Live Server.

Greetings from TRIAS
Who is stopping now to let the salt flow.
Hope my English was understandable.

Edited by T R I A S, 07 March 2017 - 02:49 PM.

[JC Daxion]

I'll just comment

I like the slower movement.. If i wanted a fast paced shooter, i can play COD, Counter strike, overwatch, tribes, planetside.. ect.. Very few slower moving shooters around.

The game can be balanced around slower movement, it is possible to make it less twitch based.


I also think the whole i have tons of mechs, how can i do this is over blown. If you have say 300 mechs like lots of people say they do.. it would take you almost a year at playing one mech a day. My guess is people have more mechs they have not even piloted once, than they actually drop in. So in my mind, if you have a mech you are not using, or use a couple drops, you aren't going to be playing it to it's fullest level anyway, so it not being skilled up is a moot point. That's if you even bother to wanting to drop into it anyway. I know with the 100 mechs i own, half aren't even skilled up and just credit sinks because i wanted to play another mech. And i am the type of person that wants to play um all, just not enough time. 8k+ drops, and tons of mechs i never touched.

As far as not making mechs as good as on live, it is a balance decision.. if everyone is in the same boat, it's not a big deal as far as i'm concerned.. and honestly goes right along with my first point.

But hey, good feedback, even if we disagree on things

Edited by JC Daxion, 06 March 2017 - 05:29 PM.

[Gentleman Reaper]

JC Daxion, on 06 March 2017 - 05:24 PM, said:

The game can be balanced around slower movement, it is possible to make it less twitch based.

I think it's less "can" and more "must". We can't keep buffing the armor and structure on lights and mediums, because it's not the only problem befalling them, rather it's that assaults and (especially) heavies can keep target on fast mechs far too easily.

If we lower mobility on the heavy-side, then flanking attacks because more effective, size becomes more useful, and having arm-mounted weapons becomes greatly encouraged, all elements that right now suffer greatly in the current meta.

[Karl Streiger]

You think it's a good idea when the Gargoyle moves like a Awesome?
You think it's a good idea when the Kodiak behave like the Annihilator?
You think it's a good idea when the UrbanMech twists like a Spider?

Congrats the engine decoupling is perfect tailored for you

Edited by Karl Streiger, 24 April 2017 - 11:18 PM.

[Katastrophy Kid]

I just tried out my KGC-000 on the test server and I have to say I'm very disheartened. My favorite load-out is twin AC20s and a STD360. The current changes make it far less viable, even with all the mobility SP taken because the torso twist is still much slower. Being able to track targets effectively is required to make this Mech work. Now, my Boomstick just feels like a whale with claws.
One of the defining features of the KGC has been its agility and with these changes it just feels like a completely different mech, and not one i like: booo
I don't want my KGC to be any different than it is now if I take all the Mobility SP

Edited by Katastrophe Kid, 25 April 2017 - 04:34 PM.

[Katastrophy Kid]

I've played on the test server and I have found my Assault Mechs greatly diminished in performance due to the engine decoupling. I find this unacceptable. The engine provides power to the mech's drive chain, so it doesn't make sense that it wouldn't enhance performance. One of the main reasons listed for changing it is because Clan omni-mechs are locked with their engine size. So what? That's the trade off for having a mech that can swap hardpoints. I call BS. If my favorite mech is diminished then I doubt I'll feel like playing as much, if at all. One of the defining characteristics of the KGC is its agility and mobility. Take that away from me and everyone else who likes playing assaults, and you'll have matches that are almost exclusively lights and mediums.
I do like the skill trees though, my one gripe is: why fall damage reduction in survival tree? Wouldn't that make more sense in the jump jet tree?

Edited by Katastrophe Kid, 25 April 2017 - 08:47 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

I saw the video about the UrbanMEch - left yes - right NO HELL NO

I need to exercise restraint but its hardly possible to stay cool when you see something so obviously stupid,

Engine Decoupling:
400STD vs 300STD on a Atlas????? +7.5t +XL for what? - 3m/s more - well played


WE TOTALLY DISAPPROVE

Edited by Karl Streiger, 26 April 2017 - 01:33 AM.

[Lolo van Trollinger]

finally. in time for the intruduction of the annihilator: everything turns as fast as an annihilator.
now, where`s that 20 rating engine for the AC20 lolcust mobile turret again ?

Hand me my lurms of burning bile, hand me my dakka of vitriolic whine - it is time to saddle up and farm some dev tears again... let the final queue drop, grind the usage into the dust of history and start all over again, selling mechpacks... wait... i am not in that business...

Edited by Lolo van Trollinger, 02 May 2017 - 11:00 AM.

[Insanity09]

As I understand it, the general consensus (whose consensus? with what data?) was that heavy and assault mechs were appearing to be too agile.
On one hand, as a frequent light pilot, I will admit that I found it a little unreal how many heavies and assaults were able to keep up turning with me, even when I was in some of my faster commandos & spiders (though not so much with the locusts).
On the other hand, I do play heavies and assaults, and I darn well do expect to get better performance (turning, torso speed, etc.) when I pay the price for a bigger engine.

It seems there should have been a medium ground.
Supposedly, PGI is capable of applying some sort of general multiplier, based on both individual chassis and weight class, for performance. At least, they said they could and did in the decoupling explanation.
Sooooo, why go all the way and do this decoupling thing? Why not just tune the assault/heavy agility numbers to bring them more into line with what is believed to be more reasonable? (by PGI?)
Many assaults and heavies had turn rate and/or accel/decel quirks (which were basically gone on the PTS last time it was up and I looked). Lower those, tune the engine numbers a little and check the data mining for a week or two to see if things are performing where they should be. Adjust as needed.

As an alternative, if the decoupling really must be done (and I don't see why), set it up so that the decoupled value is the minimum value. Put an engine of the decoupled value or smaller in a chassis, you still get the agility of the 'normalized' engine (and whatever speed you should have). Put a larger engine in, and all of your performance improves (though possibly less than it used to?). Much more palatable, I would think.

[David Sumner]

JC Daxion, on 06 March 2017 - 05:24 PM, said:

...
I also think the whole i have tons of mechs, how can i do this is over blown. If you have say 300 mechs like lots of people say they do.. it would take you almost a year at playing one mech a day. My guess is people have more mechs they have not even piloted once, than they actually drop in.
...

Hmm, I have ... something like 23 mastered mechs.
That means I have actually played a minimum of 100 matches in each of 69 mechs, because I keep only my favourite of each variant after that time.
I've skipped many months of playing.

I also use different mechs in CW than in PUG, and different for events too.

So I think there can easily be people with 40 or 50 "often" played mechs

[Ragnahawk]

I want engine decoupling. Mechs move way to fast already. This is supposed to be a slow paced game with "Strategy". I really think the linebackers acceleration is complete bullcrap. It's a heavy. There are no competitors to it in its agility. I would rather have masc on every mech than this dodging power. Have you ever tried to hit a gyr in the back? They turn too quick. Lights are already screwed because PGI added streak 6 missiles to the game along with instant lock equipment, quirks and UAVs. Now you can't even take out the heavy damage dealers? This is a good change. For once. Yall are just scared you'll lose your OPness, so your screaming on the forums for attention.


<Processing Salt Mines. Salt Incoming.>

Edited by Ragnahawk, 06 May 2017 - 09:50 AM.