162 replies to this topic

[1453 R]

Chris Lowrey, on 28 March 2017 - 02:05 PM, said:

Hey Guys,

Don't want to get in the way of the discussion here, but I do want to clear up a few things.

Yes, those values in the initial .PDF relating to engine to tonnage ratios that you can achieve in the current game. We used these values as a framework to ensure that our engine desync values roughly synced up with values that where achievable in the live game in order to test its overall framework in PTS. And to also ensure that the back end changes done to support engine desync produced comparable results to what players are used to in the live game in a general sense.

But I would not read too much into them past that point. I want to heavily stress the following:

• The values posted in those .pdf's where the values that where utilized in PTS 2. The PTS that introduced engine desync. They are not the latest values that where tested in PTS 2.5. Nor are they accurate to the value changes we are making as a result of the PTS 2.5 feedback.
  
• The purpose of the initial testing values where to test the initial implementation of the back-end changes and monitor if anything breaks. Like Deceleration did. And stress test where the initial baseline started to buckle so we knew where we could start exponentially increasing the per-tonnage baseline values.
  
• Performance will not be exactly 1 to 1 with what you see on live, we have adjusted some base turn values in regards to the performance curve that sees a bit more visible responsiveness at lower speeds.
  
• The skill tree provides higher total mobility bonus' then the current pilot lab. Engine Desync was designed with this in mind, so some values are a bit lower then their live values intentionally to factor in for the additional bump you get from your total investment in the mobility tree.
  
• On the point of the Locust, again, these where initial PTS numbers that we where observing at a macro level. The 7.5 E2T value listed on the .pdf has not been accurate since the initial Engine Desync PTS. Its Engine to tonnage template by PTS 2.5 was set to 11.5 by comparison.
  
• All other lights and mechs with significant mobility quirks received similar bumps.
  
• I want to heavily stress this last part, but this still remains an in-development feature. And as such, all values are NOT FINAL.

Feel free to continue discussion but I have to heavily stress that the posted .PDF's are not an accurate representation of the current tuning in of this feature. Nor is it accurate to what was tested in PTS 2.5.

Thank you for the information, Chris. I don't think I'll ever agree with the decoupling as a system, but extra information on the implementation is appreciated nonetheless. The only other question I have is regarding the death of the Skill Tree, and if this decoupling change is also effectively dead or if it's in continued testing for future release outside the lost Skill Tree.

FupDup, on 28 March 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

...
Your fear is making Option A better than Option B, but you are unknowingly preaching to preserve a system that just does the reserve and makes Option B better than Option A.
...
The problem is that the current system makes it so that Fast is universally better than Slow, even when you account for the "extra firepower" of the slow mech. The Dire Wolf says hello.

The point of decoupling is to try to equalize things.

I've said it before in many ways, and it fits here as well.

Flipping an imbalance is not fixing an imbalance. If Option A is currently categorically worse than Option B, but then a system is introduced which makes Option B categorically inferior to Option A, then nothing has been accomplished save pissing off a lot of people. A fix is required. I do not believe that destroying mobility-focused 'Mechs is that fix and would like to potentially investigate other fix options if any are available.

[Gas Guzzler]

1453 R, on 28 March 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

Thank you for the information, Chris. I don't think I'll ever agree with the decoupling as a system, but extra information on the implementation is appreciated nonetheless. The only other question I have is regarding the death of the Skill Tree, and if this decoupling change is also effectively dead or if it's in continued testing for future release outside the lost Skill Tree.

Not sure the skill tree is actually dead... though I wouldn't mind terribly if it was. IMO all they needed to do was fix Pinpoint, I'd be totally happy with them doing that.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 28 March 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

I've said it before in many ways, and it fits here as well.

Flipping an imbalance is not fixing an imbalance.

I've said it before in many ways, and it fits here as well.

Only you think it's flipping an imbalance rather than fixing an imbalance.

[MechaBattler]

No death of skill tree or engine decoupling. I really would much rather see them go live than retain our current systems. They are both improvements in my eyes.

Edited by MechaBattler, 28 March 2017 - 02:35 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

MechaBattler, on 28 March 2017 - 02:34 PM, said:

No death of skill tree or engine decoupling. I really would much rather see them go live than retain our current systems. They are both improvements in my eyes.

I enjoy the game as it is on live. Once the skill tree novelty wore off, I just felt like filling out the same nodes over and over again was just lame. May as well just work these things into base stats of the mechs.

Oh well, the skill tree can't be too bad I suppose.

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 March 2017 - 02:33 PM, said:

I've said it before in many ways, and it fits here as well.

Only you think it's flipping an imbalance rather than fixing an imbalance.

Going to try and make this my last post on the subject for the moment, but I'm currently bored at work and we all know how that goes. That said...

How is it not flipping the imbalance? The specific desired intent, as laid out by Fup, was "make small engines viable". That kind of necessitates small engines being every bit as useful as big engines, and if something that weighs half of what something else does is just as useful as the something else...

Well, I've laid out that argument a million times and everyone keeps calling me names over it. But if y'all get your wish and Small Engines are as viable as Big Engines currently are, how is this not a colossal, style-destroying giganerf to 'Mechs that rely on having a significant mobility advantage over their larger, slower targets but now no longer do because all their mobility was stripped from them by the change?

That sounds an awful lot like a flipped imbalance to me.

[Adette]

Engine decoupling will just add yet another layer of stats that players have to account for for min/max purposes....which is annoying to those that pay attention, but still suck for other 90% of the population that don't pay attention.

[Bud Crue]

Gas Guzzler, on 28 March 2017 - 02:26 PM, said:

Not sure the skill tree is actually dead... though I wouldn't mind terribly if it was. IMO all they needed to do was fix Pinpoint, I'd be totally happy with them doing that.

I'm sort of looking forward to it.

While I expect the UI to remain ridiculous, with its 91 nodes of gated mediocrity; and I expect the mass nerfing of the worst mechs in the game...which I still do not understand their logic for thinking that hurting mechs that are bad now will somehow make them more balanced in the new system. But whatever. No, the real expectation is that the skills tree will come in and then PGI will walk away from it for at least 6 months to a year. Similar to the way they dealt with CW after phase 3 dropped (and which Russ admitted to abandoning). I for one have no intention of playing mechs that they turn to garbage nor buying any new content in such a system.

So I see the skills tree -if it comes in as expected- as a time of cleansing.

I'm not happy about it, but I accept that PGI appears adamant in their desire to hurt the worst performers in the game, so I'm going to go with that flow and dump those that are hurt the most (cuz lets face it it will be at least 6 months before PGI revisits their actions, if at all) and buy mechs with the proceeds that are essentially nerf proof: a nice clan meta deck. My Cicadas ought to be enough to get a Cheetah. My now nearly identical surplus Crabs should be sufficient to get me a Hunchback IIc. Victors and Zeus ought to swap out nicely for a Kodiak 3, etc. Not sure what I will exchange for a Night Gyr...probably a few newly redundant Black Knights and a Warhammer 7S.

TLDR: I'm gonna embrace the beat down PGI is seemingly determined to give my mechs and take a walk on the Clan side.

[process]

Adette Vickers, on 28 March 2017 - 02:56 PM, said:

Engine decoupling will just add yet another layer of stats that players have to account for for min/max purposes....which is annoying to those that pay attention, but still suck for other 90% of the population that don't pay attention.

Does anyone actually pay attention to the current mech stats? I'll glace at torso twist range, but other than that it comes down to feel. Plus I'd rather have discrete stats than trying to mental math stuff like +35% over X degrees per second to compensate for engine coupling.

Engine decoupling may not be executed well out of the gate, but it's a much better tool for balance than what we have now.

[Gas Guzzler]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 March 2017 - 02:33 PM, said:

I've said it before in many ways, and it fits here as well.

Only you think it's flipping an imbalance rather than fixing an imbalance.

Just to be the devil's advocate here...

Consider the Night Gyr. Its a relatively small engined heavy at 70 kph, yet it is the undisputed king of mid-long range trading. How is this so if small engines are worse? Is reducing the Black Knight's benefit from increased agility with an XL350 helping balance?

Let's pretend its pre-May patch 2016. The Mauler is one of the best assaults in the game, yet it has a 325 engine cap. The Banshee is up there as well, but it has a 400 engine cap. How can these be close to on par if its as black and white as "small engine bad, big engine good". Then you look at the Highlander, and its pretty bad even with lots of agility and durability quirks, yet it has the same engine cap as the Mauler, yet much more agility. Decoupling engine agility isn't going to make the Highlander compete as well as the Mauler OR the Banshee. Its going to have no effect on the balance of those chassis because the Highlander's problem comes down to more than just low engine cap. It mostly has to do with the hardpoint layouts actually. The most mid-range firepower you can put on it is 2 UAC5 2PPC or 3 LPL 2 AC5 (or Gauss) or something along those lines. No dual big ballistics, no quad PPC, it just has the same plight of any mixed hardpoint mech really.

Ironically, most of the desire for a larger engine on mechs like the Highlander comes from heat sink slots, not agility, and decoupling agility from engines does nothing for that. Also, changing ghost heat on PPCs to 3 all of a sudden makes the Highlander-732b viable in the current game. Now, after seeing some of the values and how they vary mech to mech, I'm actually seeing a very minimal change from what's on live, so I'm okay with what they are doing provided that are working to fix some of those odd values.

I actually don't see a single thing in the spread sheet that actually helps mechs with low engine caps though. Its just removing quirks and putting them under something called "Baseline Agility".

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 28 March 2017 - 03:16 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gas Guzzler, on 28 March 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

Consider the Night Gyr. Its a relatively small engined heavy at 70 kph, yet it is the undisputed king of mid-long range trading. How is this so if small engines are worse?

Perfect storm of being capable of dual Gauss in the middle of PPC/Gauss meta. If laser vomit or dakka push were still strong that might not be the case.

Gas Guzzler, on 28 March 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

Let's pretend its pre-May patch 2016. The Mauler is one of the best assaults in the game, yet it has a 325 engine cap. The Banshee is up there as well, but it has a 400 engine cap. How can these be close to on par if its as black and white as "small engine bad, big engine good".

It would've run a larger engine if it could mount an XL with the same loadout (sadly it can't). Then the Kodiak came about and showed us just how powerful Clan dakka was. It's important to understand what caused the meta shift and why.

Gas Guzzler, on 28 March 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

Then you look at the Highlander, and its pretty bad even with lots of agility and durability quirks, yet it has the same engine cap as the Mauler, yet much more agility. Decoupling engine agility isn't going to make the Highlander compete as well as the Mauler OR the Banshee.

Mauler is a bit of a special case because of how many ballistics it can mount (and it is only the MX90 that really counts). Highlander suffers partially because it really needs the IS PPC ghost heat limit to be 3 (there are a few mechs that could seriously benefit from this). That said both suffer compared to the Kodiak due to agiltiy and speed on top of loadout related issues (and yes, the Highlander does absolutely benefit from that agility, just like the HGN-IIC does). Not saying there aren't special cases (Linebacker being over-engined) but as a general rule, the bigger the engine the better (to a point).

Gas Guzzler, on 28 March 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

I actually don't see a single thing in the spread sheet that actually helps mechs with low engine caps though. Its just removing quirks and putting them under something called "Baseline Agility".

Which is the problem, so hopefully what Chris said is true and that they have drastically improved the numbers. It should also make agility "quirks" a bit more uniform.

[Gas Guzzler]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 March 2017 - 03:26 PM, said:

Perfect storm of being capable of dual Gauss in the middle of PPC/Gauss meta. If laser vomit or dakka push were still strong that might not be the case.

And you can't really run that loadout with an engine much bigger.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 March 2017 - 03:26 PM, said:

It would've run a larger engine if it could mount an XL with the same loadout (sadly it can't). Then the Kodiak came about and showed us just how powerful Clan dakka was. It's important to understand what caused the meta shift and why.

Even if the slots worked out, how fast of an XL do you think you put on there? Bigger than a 325? I kinda doubt it considering needing ammo, and needing to keep an arm armored up for the 5th AC5... IS dakka mechs just don't do big engines because they don't have the tonnage for them. Clan dakka is small and light enough that it works out a lot better. If you took an IS Kodiak and put 2 UAC10s and 2 UAC5s... oh they wouldn't fit on the torsos without forcing a standard engine, so pretend 2 10s in the shoulders, 2 5s in arms then, how big of an XL engine could you fit there? XL... 325? LFE 300 ish? Kind of digressing here, but it kind of shows how the big engine thing only works for Clan mechs. I understand what caused THAT meta shift, I'm talking about how a low engine cap assault was ruling the roost (yes, because 5 AC5s and quirks made it an awesome long range ballistic platform), which is really about how engine size/agility have been tied together in the past. Agile with higher alpha hotter poke, vs sluggish with sustained DPS.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 March 2017 - 03:27 PM, said:

Mauler is a bit of a special case because of how many ballistics it can mount (and it is only the MX90 that really counts). Highlander suffers partially because it really needs the IS PPC ghost heat limit to be 3 (there are a few mechs that could seriously benefit from this). That said both suffer compared to the Kodiak due to agiltiy and speed on top of loadout related issues (and yes, the Highlander does absolutely benefit from that agility, just like the HGN-IIC does). Not saying there aren't special cases (Linebacker being over-engined) but as a general rule, the bigger the engine the better (to a point).

Well, if you raised the engine cap on the Highlanders their loadouts would change, why not just improve their firepower capability instead to distinguish them? Make the Highlander loadouts less hot compared to the same loadout on a WHM-6R, for instance. I liked the duration quirk on the SNV. Stuff like that. Agility doesn't fix the problem. If it did, then the massive agility quirks on the HGN would make it good.

[Gas Guzzler]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 March 2017 - 03:27 PM, said:

Which is the problem, so hopefully what Chris said is true and that they have drastically improved the numbers. It should also make agility "quirks" a bit more uniform.

But if we are adjusting "Baseline Agility" to be based on stock engine size plus quirks, then what is the point? Why not just leave the quirks, but help those mechs with firepower more.

Anyway, I don't see a huge change from this so I'm not really fretting.

Also really annoyed they are nerfing the -5% heat gen quirk on the SNV-B. That's a perfect quirk for that mech that makes it more sustainable vs a MAD-IIC with the same loadout but faster, yet they take the quirk away because of the skill tree, that the MAD-IIC ALSO happens to have access to? Very annoyed about that one, and little things like that contribute to me being okay with the "Skill tree cancelled" movement.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 28 March 2017 - 03:43 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Gas Guzzler, on 28 March 2017 - 03:39 PM, said:

If you took an IS Kodiak and put 2 UAC10s and 2 UAC5s... oh they wouldn't fit on the torsos without forcing a standard engine, so pretend 2 10s in the shoulders, 2 5s in arms then, how big of an XL engine could you fit there? XL... 325?

XL 375 would work out just fine. It's a 10 ton difference between the Clan and IS versions of that gun combination, the KDK runs a 400, so at most you can run a 380 on the IS 'Mech.

It's not that far off. Oh yay, a whopping 4.4 kph!

[Deathlike]

Gas Guzzler, on 28 March 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

Just to be the devil's advocate here...

Consider the Night Gyr. Its a relatively small engined heavy at 70 kph, yet it is the undisputed king of mid-long range trading. How is this so if small engines are worse? Is reducing the Black Knight's benefit from increased agility with an XL350 helping balance?

Let's pretend its pre-May patch 2016. The Mauler is one of the best assaults in the game, yet it has a 325 engine cap. The Banshee is up there as well, but it has a 400 engine cap. How can these be close to on par if its as black and white as "small engine bad, big engine good". Then you look at the Highlander, and its pretty bad even with lots of agility and durability quirks, yet it has the same engine cap as the Mauler, yet much more agility. Decoupling engine agility isn't going to make the Highlander compete as well as the Mauler OR the Banshee. Its going to have no effect on the balance of those chassis because the Highlander's problem comes down to more than just low engine cap. It mostly has to do with the hardpoint layouts actually. The most mid-range firepower you can put on it is 2 UAC5 2PPC or 3 LPL 2 AC5 (or Gauss) or something along those lines. No dual big ballistics, no quad PPC, it just has the same plight of any mixed hardpoint mech really.

Ironically, most of the desire for a larger engine on mechs like the Highlander comes from heat sink slots, not agility, and decoupling agility from engines does nothing for that. Also, changing ghost heat on PPCs to 3 all of a sudden makes the Highlander-732b viable in the current game. Now, after seeing some of the values and how they vary mech to mech, I'm actually seeing a very minimal change from what's on live, so I'm okay with what they are doing provided that are working to fix some of those odd values.

I actually don't see a single thing in the spread sheet that actually helps mechs with low engine caps though. Its just removing quirks and putting them under something called "Baseline Agility".

"It's all relative."

While not strictly balanced, you have to consider what is the most likely build scenario for some mechs. Maulers will naturally be less agile because it has to generally carry a large STD engine to compensate for the simple fact that Dakka is heavy. A Night Gyr in the current meta is already effective with the engine it has... and since that's unchangeable (which is a factor in the omnimech discussion), it is easier to address its relative agility.. which also means its effectiveness.

It doesn't make engines less important as top speed then is most important factor (things like previous MW games had allowed you to adjust) instead of trying to make sure the engine you need matches the agility profile desired. It's why it kinda made some sense back when we had ONLY IS mechs to have the Victor have the agility of an Atlas (which was overkill IMO), but so much LESS sense once Clans arrived and made agility (and "Nascaring") more of a thing.

Engine caps (or locked engines) shouldn't be the fundamental reason to avoid doing this.

[oldradagast]

Ultimax, on 28 March 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

So let me get this straight.

We are taking what is currently a very straightforward and logical system that accounts for mech tonnage & engine rating to calculate twist speeds & linear speeds - where mechs have to pay tonnage to earn gains - and instead PGI is going to arbitrarily choose twist speeds for mechs?

How is that an improvement?

It's not an improvement, but people are going to cheer all day about what a brilliant idea this is because it'll finally nerf the Kodiak and Timberwolf to the point of being useless. It'll also punish brawlers, wreck mechs that rely on large engines, and otherwise unbalance the game, but we're to believe that all change is good and PGI will clearly do a wonderful job with a large game balance change... like all the times they did in the past... lol...

This whole thing is a farce. For every mech that might be too agile under the current system and thus a bit overpowered, there's at least one mech that will be hammered into immobile trash under the new system. The Kodiak and the Atlas are a perfect example: tell me how make both of them far less mobile helps game balance? Yeah, OK - the Kodiak is weaker, but now the Atlas is trash, which means the Kodiak is STILL BETTER than the Atlas! Nothing useful has been achieved, except now engine size no longer benefits your mech in much of any way, so you can see a reduction in viable builds on the field; does MWO really need that?

The final irony - all the defenders of this pointless change claim it's great because PGI can "fix the mechs that are not mobile enough with quirks." OK, but they can also fix the mechs that are too mobile with quirks currently - we don't need to break the whole mobility aspect of the game and then bandage it up with more quirks to do that.

Edited by oldradagast, 28 March 2017 - 04:06 PM.

[oldradagast]

GotShotALot, on 28 March 2017 - 01:13 PM, said:

Reply to FupDup:

Thank you, that is a good explanation of the potential for the de-synch. In which case, it basically just comes down to PGI picking some reasonable base values, adjusting a few quirks for mech balance and viability, and then using a few iterations and data mining to tweak those values into something resembling a playable mix.

A skillset which PGI rarely, if ever, demonstrated when it comes to large balance changes, which is part of my opposition to this change. We're dealing with people who think a 91-point grind maze was the same as a skill system with roles. The same people are likely to produce a Kodiak that even further outperforms an Atlas with the new system.

[Deathlike]

oldradagast, on 28 March 2017 - 04:00 PM, said:

A skillset which PGI rarely, if ever, demonstrated when it comes to large balance changes, which is part of my opposition to this change. We're dealing with people who think a 91-point grind maze was the same as a skill system with roles. The same people are likely to produce a Kodiak that even further outperforms an Atlas with the new system.

The thing is, it's important to have a good idea AND a good implementation of it.

I've seen very little of the latter (which is where most complaints come from), but occasionally the former being like RNGesus (minimap, Ghost Heat v2/Energy Draw, quirks).. it's really about actually having a good design to go with the idea that needs to be done. When you don't have a good design, it looks really half arsed... mostly because it ends up that way.

[process]

The decoupling concept was initially pitched by players years ago, so it's hardly white-knighting PGI. There's nothing about decoupling that necessarily means certain mechs will become better or worse, it's just a more flexible framework than the current system. It's obviously going to take PGI a few passes to make it work, and I say that as someone who's just as cynical about their ability to do so as the next guy.

If PGI wanted to, they could establish the post-decoupled mech stats based on their current stats with their most common engine, and you probably wouldn't notice a difference.

[Y E O N N E]

oldradagast, on 28 March 2017 - 04:00 PM, said:

A skillset which PGI rarely, if ever, demonstrated when it comes to large balance changes, which is part of my opposition to this change. We're dealing with people who think a 91-point grind maze was the same as a skill system with roles. The same people are likely to produce a Kodiak that even further outperforms an Atlas with the new system.

You take the same risk even if you choose to maintain the status quo, because PGI semi-regularly makes sweeping quirk changes that usually have that exact sort of impact.