162 replies to this topic

[oldradagast]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 March 2017 - 05:37 PM, said:

So remove uniqueness from mechs?
That is akin to saying, "oh hey, ballistics are the real reason assaults are good, why not just give everyone ballistics"

When you get to the point you are removing restrictions to avoid a certain issue, then something should tell you there is a problem with a foundation. My code smell senses are tingling.

Who's to say that variants with unique engine caps compared to others of that chassis will keep anything "unique" about them under this new system? Will the Pretty Baby be more mobile than Awesomes that cap at a 300 engine? Maybe, maybe not.

My point is that we're taking a system that makes sense and basically replacing it with glorified quirks, which have a long history of not be applied correctly. We're also either rewarding mechs based on an engine they may not even be carrying - a "ghost engine" - or trying to shove all mechs of a certain tonnage into the same mobility, regardless of engine size.

None of those options make sense. All of them are ham-handed, reduce the meaning of engine choice - reducing build variance in the game - and place a huge amount of reliance on PGI's ability to understand game balance and mech roles. Keep in mind they still think the Victor and Highlander are top tier and need to be kept mediocre via lousy quirks... and we're going to trust them to make mobility into a super-quirk? Come on...

[Widowmaker1981]

My biggest issue with the values they have chosen is the Timberwolf. It gets to have much less agility than the Ebon Jaguar or Hellbringer (4.25 vs 4.75 - they all used to have 5.0) despite spending an extra 7.5 tons on its engine, which means it pays through the nose for an over large engine it now gets less than no benefit from. Imo making bringing Timbers completely stupid** - its spending 80% of the tons it gets from being 10 tons heavier on the engine (and its increased structure weight, 100% if you count the extra 2 locked DHS), and so you actually lose out by bringing the 10 ton heavier mech - so in any game mode where tonnage matters, Timbers are now bad choices. If you want to spend 75 tons on a heavy, bring a Night Gyr (3.75 agility, but like twice the podspace), and if you want a 87kph heavy, bring an Ebon or a Hellbringer.

** maybe with the exception of the ASRM24, 5SPL build since other mechs dont have the hardpoints to do that, but i hate pure brawlers anyway so that doesn't help me, lol. With those values, ill be selling them, or at least stripping them and ignoring them until its changed.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 29 March 2017 - 03:59 AM.

[Ultimax]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 March 2017 - 05:37 PM, said:

So remove uniqueness from mechs?

We could say the same in reverse.

Why are we removing the uniqenuess of superior agility from mechs that can take big engines & spend the tonnage to do so?

I'm pulling from what Gas posted upthread, so bear with me.

Why give an 80 tonner like the Victor the agility of a 400 engine when the Gargoyle has to spend the tonnage for that 400 engine & the Victor doesn't?

That's part of the Gargoyle's "uniqueness", it can't take JJs, it can't take Gauss + PPCs - so why should another mech get that advantage without paying the cost for it?

Why give the Banshee the agility of a 400 engine without needing to pay that cost, when a giant engine and high mobility are some of the Executioner's defining features?


I really don't think "uniqueness" works as a good reason here, because it works both ways.

Edited by Ultimax, 29 March 2017 - 05:42 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Widowmaker1981, on 29 March 2017 - 03:56 AM, said:

My biggest issue with the values they have chosen is the Timberwolf. It gets to have much less agility than the Ebon Jaguar or Hellbringer (4.25 vs 4.75 - they all used to have 5.0) despite spending an extra 7.5 tons on its engine, which means it pays through the nose for an over large engine it now gets less than no benefit from. Imo making bringing Timbers completely stupid** - its spending 80% of the tons it gets from being 10 tons heavier on the engine (and its increased structure weight, 100% if you count the extra 2 locked DHS), and so you actually lose out by bringing the 10 ton heavier mech - so in any game mode where tonnage matters, Timbers are now bad choices. If you want to spend 75 tons on a heavy, bring a Night Gyr (3.75 agility, but like twice the podspace), and if you want a 87kph heavy, bring an Ebon or a Hellbringer.

** maybe with the exception of the ASRM24, 5SPL build since other mechs dont have the hardpoints to do that, but i hate pure brawlers anyway so that doesn't help me, lol. With those values, ill be selling them, or at least stripping them and ignoring them until its changed.

Hopefully they change that value, because putting the Timber closer to Night Gyr agility is a mistake, given the firepower advantage the Night Gyr has.

[Gas Guzzler]

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

We could say the same in reverse.

Why are we removing the uniqenuess of superior agility from mechs that can take big engines & spend the tonnage to do so?

I'm pulling from what Gas posted upthread, so bear with me.

Why give an 80 tonner like the Victor the agility of a 400 engine when the Gargoyle has to spend the tonnage for that 400 engine & the Victor doesn't?

That's part of the Gargoyle's "uniqueness", it can't take JJs, it can't take Gauss + PPCs - so why should another mech get that advantage without paying the cost for it?

Why give the Banshee the agility of a 400 engine without needing to pay that cost, when a giant engine and high mobility are some of the Executioner's defining features?


I really don't think "uniqueness" works as a good reason here, because it works both ways.

Well, I will point out that the Gargoyle gets 440 engine agility and the Executioner get's 427 engine agility, so they do have slight advantages there.

It just seems that this ETR value is as arbitrary as quirks were, only now they can nerf agility for mechs like the Timber Wolf without giving it those pesky red text negative quirks.

[Ultimax]

Gas Guzzler, on 29 March 2017 - 06:10 AM, said:

Hopefully they change that value, because putting the Timber closer to Night Gyr agility is a mistake, given the firepower advantage the Night Gyr has.

Yes, this is one of my main points.

The Night Gyr clearly has speed and lower agility as a disadvantage vs. the TBR but it also clearly has significantly better overall firepower options vs. the TBR.

So we have them dragging the TBR down to 320 engine level agility and the Night Gyr down to 280 - but then 80 ton mechs (mechs 5 tons HEAVIER) are going to get the agility of 400 engines?


Once again we are looking at an idiosyncratic system that is just trying to arbitrarily create winners and losers as opposed to using an actual formula based on engine size vs. mech tonnage.

Now if they want to tweak THE FORMULA and use that to leverage greater benefits for lights and mediums - great, at least that is logical and systematic. That's really not what is being done though, and is why I'm opposed to a total decoupling.

[Ultimax]

Gas Guzzler, on 29 March 2017 - 06:14 AM, said:

Well, I will point out that the Gargoyle gets 440 engine agility and the Executioner get's 427 engine agility, so they do have slight advantages there.

It just seems that this ETR value is as arbitrary as quirks were, only now they can nerf agility for mechs like the Timber Wolf without giving it those pesky red text negative quirks.

Thanks for the clarification.

Two comments/questions

1) Have you had a chance to test those specific mechs (I haven't)? If so, are those values actually providing just a numerical (theoretical) benefit or are they demonstrating a real practical (in combat) benefit vs. a 400 engine?

2) We still have a situation where a mech like the Executioner, with it's higher armor and MASC (which is the exact argument Fup tried to use, so now I'll use it in the opposite) is getting the benefit of a 427 rating engine that it doesn't have but the TBR is being nerfed down to a 320.

That seems completely arbitrary, why does one mech spending a high tonnage cost get a phantom value of an even larger engine yet another mech with basically the exact same podspace & less armor gets nerfed down to a weaker engine?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

We could say the same in reverse.

Except you can't, because as Gas points out the numbers are arbitrary, but no longer dependent on the engine stuffed in there (which helps out STD engines and mechs that don't run with their max engine cap).

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 06:49 AM, said:

That seems completely arbitrary, why does one mech spending a high tonnage cost get a phantom value of an even larger engine yet another mech with basically the exact same podspace & less armor gets nerfed down to a weaker engine?

Because one mech is a waste of the tonnage in most situations and the other less so....

[Ultimax]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 March 2017 - 07:50 AM, said:

Because one mech is a waste of the tonnage in most situations and the other less so....

Is the Banshee a waste of tonnage as well? Why does it get a phantom larger engine?


Also the problem with the Executioner is not the TBR, the problem with the Exe was the existence of the Dire Wolf and eventually the existence of the KDK. (And they are a problem for nearly all Assault mechs to justify themselves)

Those mechs basically changed the game in what was an acceptable level of firepower for an assault mech.

The Exe runs a loadout that is in all respects equal to or superior to what the HGN used to run - on what I deem a superior platform (and superior placement for the PPCs for that matter).

So are we going to give the HGN a 425 engine agility as well? Do we give it free movement speed?

If we don't, then how do we justify the EXE's special exceptions agains the equally "worthless" HGN?
Basically the same Gauss+PPC loadout + DHS already accounted for, faster raw linear speed, same or better armor values, MASC, better mount locations for PPCs, Clan XL, etc.

This is about as muddy as a design can get.

Do we let it continue to cascade and justify that the VTR being lighter, with less armor than the HGN now needs more agility to bring it in line with the HGN? Or does the VTR just get forced to buy that bigger engine?


At what point do we continue to make exceptions instead of just fixing the root causes (mech "uniqueness" like smaller than desirable engine caps)?


What we have here, is not an overhaul of a system - it is buffs and nerfs disguised as an overhaul of a system - and as we've seen before this usually just creates a new set of winners and losers that PGI has to individually tweak and manage over time (which they have historically, not been successful at).

Edited by Ultimax, 29 March 2017 - 08:56 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

Is the Banshee a waste of tonnage as well? Why does it get a phantom larger engine?

Compared to the Wubmaster, yes actually (which is why I don't even consider them for Star League).

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

Also the problem with the Executioner is not the TBR

The problem with the Executioner has nothing to do with other mechs, it has to do with it having a bunch of tonnage locked up in worthless JJs and not having the greatest of hardpoints or space for decent weapon loadouts. Even without the KDK and Whale it would not be worth the tonnage compared to more efficient mechs like the Battlemaster and Marauder IIC.

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

The Exe runs a loadout that is in all respects equal to or superior to what the HGN used to run - on what I deem a superior platform (and superior placement for the PPCs for that matter).

I sure as hell don't deem them equal. Granted it depends on which HGN we are talking about (the IS one just needs 3 PPC to not trigger ghost heat and it is golden).

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

Or does the VTR just get forced to buy that bigger engine?

The better speed is a selling point of the Victor, so not really sure what you are driving at.

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

What we have here, is not an overhaul of a system - it is buffs and nerfs disguised as an overhaul of a system

You realize overhauling systems generally imply buffs/nerfs because they change how things work right? The question is how they are applied (mobility quirks are not constant like they are with the decoupling).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 29 March 2017 - 09:03 AM.

[Ultimax]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 March 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

Compared to the Wubmaster, yes actually (which is why I don't even consider them for Star League).

Is it a waste of tonnage compared to the Zeus?

If we give the Banshee the twist ability of a 425 engine rating, should we give the Zeus a 450, a 500?

You seem to want to nitpick which mechs are good right now - I'm looking at the big picutre here (and that goes beyond comp as well).

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 March 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

The problem with the Executioner has nothing to do with other mechs, it has to do with it having a bunch of tonnage locked up in worthless JJs and not having the greatest of hardpoints or space for decent weapon loadouts.

OK, so Gauss + 2x CERPPCs is no longer a decent loadout? It's the loadout we would see on HGNs and VTRs if they were suddenly made viable through tech base changes.

It's the loadout we see on TBRs & NTGs.


I'm not sure what you're on about for hardpoints, the EXE's torso mounts are higher than anything the HGN can muster and it's left arm ballistic mount isn't really any worse than the HGN's ballistic arm (a bit more distance from the cockpit probably, but overall height clearance is better IIRC)

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 March 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

Even without the KDK and Whale it would not be worth the tonnage compared to more efficient mechs like the Battlemaster and Marauder IIC.

So should we nerf those mechs as well, down to 300 engine ratings for twist speed? How about 280?

The point here is that there is no end to this, because the design will not be applied in a logical way.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 March 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

I sure as hell don't deem them equal. Granted it depends on which HGN we are talking about (the IS one just needs 3 PPC to not trigger ghost heat and it is golden).

Your veering off into hypotheticals. If there was no ghost heat on CERPPCs, the EXE would have 3 superior energy mounts with all the other benefits the mech has vs. the HGN.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 March 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

The better speed is a selling point of the Victor, so not really sure what you are driving at.

Maybe you don't remeber when the VTRs twist speeds were severely nerfed no matter how big it's engine was, liner speed was the least of the problem at that point.

It struggled to spread damage, and get on target quickly.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 March 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

You realize overhauling systems generally imply buffs/nerfs because they change how things work right? The question is how they are applied (mobility quirks are not constant like they are with the decoupling).

Overhaulling a system is exactly that, overhauling a system.

That's really not what is being done, there is no systematic approach to how these different mechs are being given their new engine twist speeds - there doesn't even seem to be an actual baseline, it's being "decided by feel".

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

Is it a waste of tonnage compared to the Zeus?

Probably, I've consider those more than a Banshee these days, especially considering how much armor one of the Zeus variants has. When you factor in tonnage things become a lot different than when only weight class matters. 15 tons of difference is huge (difference between a Dragon and a Night Gyr).

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

You seem to want to nitpick which mechs are good right now - I'm looking at the big picutre here (and that goes beyond comp as well).

I'm not nitpicking, you just don't seem to understand how tonnage can play into the usefulness of a mech. Sure if we aren't factoring in tonnage, then the Banshee is more useful than a Zeus.

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

OK, so Gauss + 2x CERPPCs is no longer a decent loadout? It's the loadout we would see on HGNs and VTRs if they were suddenly made viable through tech base changes.

It isn't a viable loadout on a mech that is 20 tons heavier than other mechs that run it. We would see it on Victors, but again, there is a 15 ton difference between the two mechs. As for HGNs, depends on what they plan to do to balance tech, now you are playing a bit in the hypotheticals.

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

It's the loadout we see on TBRs & NTGs.

You mean just Timbys, I know some people use the 2 ERPPC/Gauss (which is best on the hero variant) on the Night Gyr, but 2 Gauss/ERPPC is simply better for the role it provides.

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

I'm not sure what you're on about for hardpoints, the EXE's torso mounts are higher than anything the HGN can muster and it's left arm ballistic mount isn't really any worse than the HGN's ballistic arm (a bit more distance from the cockpit probably, but overall height clearance is better IIRC)

Just because the torso mounts are higher doesn't really mean much when the arm is lower. Sure the left arm ballistic is equivalent but that means you also aren't running asym because the left torso can't carry 2 ERPPCs. It is also a fairly hot build compared to the HGN because you have so much tonnage locked up in other equipment.

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

So should we nerf those mechs as well, down to 300 engine ratings for twist speed? How about 280?

The point here is that there is no end to this, because the design will not be applied in a logical way.

Slippery slope argument? Really?

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

Your veering off into hypotheticals. If there was no ghost heat on CERPPCs, the EXE would have 3 superior energy mounts with all the other benefits the mech has vs. the HGN.

There is a difference between ghost heat on cERPPCs and ghost heat limit on iPPCs. Sure, it's a hypothetical, but one that needs to happen for the IS to compete with Clan Gauss/PPC. That or if the HPPC has a ghost heat limit of 2, then that will be good enough.

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

Maybe you don't remeber when the VTRs twist speeds were severely nerfed no matter how big it's engine was, liner speed was the least of the problem at that point.

It struggled to spread damage, and get on target quickly.

Maybe you don't remember that times have changed, and that I never said it would be nerfed in that regard, just that it didn't have to start this power creep of agility. For someone who supposedly is looking at the larger picture, you sure are focused on one aspect (agility) like it is a silver bullet when NO ONE said it would be.

Ultimax, on 29 March 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

That's really not what is being done, there is no systematic approach to how these different mechs are being given their new engine twist speeds - there doesn't even seem to be an actual baseline, it's being "decided by feel".

How about you plot all the ETR numbers and see if you can find a trend line to find out if there is an actual baseline. I'm willing to bet there is a decent trend (95 tonners are a bit of a special scenario though given how both are meant to be mobile designs). That said, it has to be somewhat arbitrary because each mech tends to be special in some way (or should be) so mechs need to be evaluated and balanced as such. Sorry but arbitrary adjustments is the way you HAVE to balance things like this unless you are a huge math nerd that somehow is able to plot all this out like Yeonne did with lasers and such.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 29 March 2017 - 09:45 AM.

[razenWing]

I am confused...

So I multiply 4.75*65 for my EBJ and got around 308. Which, I believe EBJ with 325, is getting a nerf.

But comparing this to Linebacker, which is only faster and more agile now because of the 390 currently... is now even more buffed (more agile) to 422.5 because... why? (and shouldn't it have lower ETR because 65/390 is way lower than 65/325????)

This whole thing is wacked... I thought the whole point of decoupling is that all 65 tonners will handle the same regardless of engine. All 60 tonners will handle the same, etc and etc.

Why are there obvious mobility differences within the same class? How is this "decoupling" if the factor is obviously based on a ENGINE TO TONNAGE ratio? That means it's MORE coupled if anything. WTF? I don't get it...

Can someone explain this to me?

So rather than having control over your own agility, PGI is now just arbitrary telling you which mechs is now going to perform better? So if you have a switchable engine with high ETR, than you are f-ing set. Why would you ever consider buying any other mech with low ETR? Why is PGI just straight up murdering Omni mechs? WTF? Because of Heat limitation, it's not like Omni mechs are really enjoying the ability to swap pods.

I don't get it. If THIS is how they are going to do it, they can go suck it, cause this system blows donkey balls.

Edited by razenWing, 29 March 2017 - 09:49 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

This whole thing is wacked... I thought the whole point of decoupling is that all 65 tonners will handle the same regardless of engine. All 60 tonners will handle the same, etc and etc.

Ideally thats how it should work. The base agility should be the same for all 65 tonners.

And then any 65 tonners that need more agility than the baseline would get quirks to increase it.

For example a 60 ton dragon should have the same base agility as a 60 ton quickdraw. But the dragon should get quirks that increase its agility further simply because the dragon is supposed to be super agile compared to other mechs in the same weight class.

If thats not the way PGI is doing it, theyre doing it wrong...

Edited by Khobai, 29 March 2017 - 09:54 AM.

[MechaBattler]

Yeah, they're nerfing things. Are you surprised? I don't recall PGI promising not to nerf things. Some mechs are just plain better than others. So just tweaking things evenly across the board isn't going to fix that disparity.

[razenWing]

Khobai, on 29 March 2017 - 09:50 AM, said:

Ideally thats how it should work. The base agility should be the same for all 65 tonners.

And then any 65 tonners that need more agility than the baseline would get quirks to increase it.

But clearly, it's not. Cause if Linebacker is already hard to handle against mechs of the same exact weight class now (65), imagine after the change, it will literally murder everyone else in the same weight class because PGI just decided for everyone that Linebacker is going to be even better.

That's at least how I am interpreting it... unless someone care to explain to me otherwise.

Cause, saying LBK is going to perform like a 422.5 engine whereas EBJ and HBR is going to perform like a 308 (310) engine doesn't sound like decoupling to me. Decoupling to me is LBK, EBJ, and HBR all perform like the same f-ing 65 tonners, with LBK going faster because of the larger engine.

MechaBattler, on 29 March 2017 - 09:54 AM, said:

Yeah, they're nerfing things. Are you surprised? I don't recall PGI promising not to nerf things. Some mechs are just plain better than others. So just tweaking things evenly across the board isn't going to fix that disparity.

Ok fine, I accept that. But then, it's not a "decoupling." Just straight up tell people that you are going to reshuffle how every mech is going to perform based on our arbitrary rules. And see how people will take it.

Call it what it is, it's a meta reshuffle. It's not a god damn decoupling.

Edited by razenWing, 29 March 2017 - 09:57 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Decoupling to me is LBK, EBJ, and HBR all perform like the same f-ing 65 tonners, with LBK going faster because of the larger engine.

correct. thats how it should be.

all 65 tonners should have the same base agility

and only quirks should increase that agility (for the mechs that are supposed to be more agile than normal)

PGI is definitely not doing it right...

it sounds like theyre basing each mech's base agility on its stock engine rating. which is not a good way of doing it. thats not decoupling because larger stock engine ratings are still making the mechs more agile.

Edited by Khobai, 29 March 2017 - 10:00 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

razenWing, on 29 March 2017 - 09:55 AM, said:

Cause if Linebacker is already hard to handle against mechs of the same exact weight class now (65)

Ummm, what? The Linebacker is not as good as either the Hellbringer or the Ebon Jag, so it getting buffed while the other two are nerfed should come as a surprise to no one. That said, it is actually getting nerfed because it is losing its 30% accel/decel quirks which put it at much higher than a 390 (around a 480). Then there is the fact Chris has already said these numbers are out of date.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 29 March 2017 - 10:04 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Ummm, what? The Linebacker is not as good as either the Hellbringer or the Ebon Jag, so it getting buffed while the other two are nerfed should come as a surprise to no one.

I dont think anyone has a problem with the linebacker getting buffed.

its just it should be done through quirks instead of a wonky inconsistent system that isnt really decoupling engines from agility in the way that it should

its a goofball way of doing things thats just going to cause problems in the future

makes more sense to start all 65 tonners out at the same agility then use quirks to adjust the agility where it needs to be for each particular mech. then you know exactly how that mech compares to the baseline for agility.

Edited by Khobai, 29 March 2017 - 10:05 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 29 March 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

its just it should be done through quirks instead of a wonky inconsistent system

Sorry, I just had to lol at this statement.

Quirks ARE a wacky inconsistent system too. Both are purely arbitrary, how they impact builds is different however (since quirks give you more the larger your engine is which honestly makes them more inconsistent).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 29 March 2017 - 10:06 AM.