58 replies to this topic

[Katastrophy Kid]

Ruar, on 26 April 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:

My Enforcer felt the same on test as it does on live.

And I never said the medium should be equal terms as the assault. I said there are times when a medium should be able to out maneuver an assault in order to gain an advantage. At the same time the assault has advantages over that medium.

Battletech is not designed around the idea that the bigger the mech the better. It's designed around the idea of group based warfare where different mechs fill different roles and terrain, weapon selection, group makeup, and coordination all combine to shape the battlefield.

If the medium is able to sneak up behind an assault then it should be a serious problem for that assault. Currently on live the assault just turns around faster than the medium can circle. The medium should be rewarded for getting in behind the assault the same way the assault should be rewarded for using it's superior firepower to cripple the medium before it can close the gap.

Sneaking up on an assault and double teaming an assault are different than being able to run fast enough to get behind an assault and stay there. The first two require skill and patience, the latter is an advantage inherent in mech design. The first two: Yes, the last: No. If an opponent gets behind an assault then it shouldn't be a death sentence. Two mediums working in tandem to out flank an assault is one thing, making mediums faster to the point that a single medium can get behind and stay behind an assault is another.

I agree that different mechs should fill different roles, I just don't see how this changes anything for the better. Assault pilots already get out maneuvered by lights and mediums.

Edited by Katastrophe Kid, 26 April 2017 - 03:58 PM.

[oldradagast]

Engine decoupling is just another "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist.

It fixes absolutely nothing. There are no major mobility issues with mechs in the game aside from a few oddballs that are arguably too agile (Locust) or too slow / sluggish (Dire Wolf.) There are also some mechs with abnormally low engine caps compared to their peers that suffer for it from a build variety perspective.

The solution is NOT to basically scrap the current mobility system and build some new mess from scratch. All that does is upend all the previous work to achieve balance and result in a new - and longer - list of mechs with issues. I'm not sure what the current plan is, exactly, but locking mobility values based on tonnage, stock engine, or some goofy mix of the two does nothing but reduce the viable roles for a mech and the number of mech builds on the field since you can no longer do anything to improve a mech's mobility via changing the engine. In short, it reduces variety, which is never good. It also fixes nothing, so there's no good reason for it.

It does, however, force people to waste points grinding up the mobility trees in the skill maze, and since this whole development effort seems clearly focused on substituting GRIND for CONTENT, I guess it's working...

Edited by oldradagast, 26 April 2017 - 02:49 PM.

[Katastrophy Kid]

oldradagast, on 26 April 2017 - 02:47 PM, said:

Engine decoupling is just another "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist.

It fixes absolutely nothing. There are no major mobility issues with mechs in the game aside from a few oddballs that are arguably too agile (Locust) or too slow / sluggish (Dire Wolf.) There are also some mechs with abnormally low engine caps compared to their peers that suffer for it from a build variety perspective.

The solution is NOT to basically scrap the current mobility system and build some new mess from scratch. All that does is upend all the previous work to achieve balance and result in a new - and longer - list of mechs with issues. I'm not sure what the current plan is, exactly, but locking mobility values based on tonnage, stock engine, or some goofy mix of the two does nothing but reduce the viable roles for a mech and the number of mech builds on the field since you can no longer do anything to improve a mech's mobility via changing the engine. In short, it reduces variety, which is never good. It also fixes nothing, so there's no good reason for it.

It does, however, force people to waste points grinding up the mobility trees in the skill maze, and since this whole development effort seems clearly focused on substituting GRIND for CONTENT, I guess it's working...

Absolutely, there's nothing wrong with the way things are now. Starting over rather than making adjustment to the current system just adds more complexity and may end up being more problematic.

ocular tb, on 26 April 2017 - 02:34 PM, said:

Am I understanding correctly that a mech such as a Victor with a 300 engine will have the same turn/twist rate as a Victor with a 385? And the turn/twist is going to be based on a mech by mech basis?

Yes

Edited by Katastrophe Kid, 26 April 2017 - 02:55 PM.

[oldradagast]

Katastrophe Kid, on 26 April 2017 - 02:56 PM, said:

Absolutely, there's nothing wrong with the way things are now. Starting over rather than making adjustment to the current system just adds more complexity and may end up being more problematic.

It is doubly concerning since PGI has shown no ability to quickly address problems in their game that are anything short of game-breaking. In short, if most of the IS mechs or whatever end up utterly useless after this skill maze and mobility nerf get deployed, it'll be 6 months - or never - before they even take half-hearted attempts to fix the issue.

How long has the Pinpoint skill done nothing? How long have jump-jets and certain once good mechs that used them been useless? How long have the Victor's missile tubes been screwed up and limited on salvo size? OK, they may have fixed that last one recently... only YEARS after the problem was first noted.

I have ZERO faith in PGI's ability to properly balance the game after these massive changes, and I sadly suspect they'll do nothing until all the New Tech arrives, and then claim that the resulting mess "is balanced" because every faction has "lots of stuff," so who cares what mechs are playable or not?

[Katastrophy Kid]

Let me give you an example of how engine decoupling lessens mech variety. I own three KGC-000s. One is equipped with two AC20s and a STD360. The engine gives a lot of torso twist which compensates for the reduced firepower. Another has a STD330, two AC20s and two SRM6+A, More firepower, less agility. Give and take. Removing engine rating agility modifiers effectively takes away the KGC-000's variety and makes it a one build mech.

[Ruar]

Katastrophe Kid, on 26 April 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

Let me give you an example of how engine decoupling lessens mech variety. I own three KGC-000s. One is equipped with two AC20s and a STD360. The engine gives a lot of torso twist which compensates for the reduced firepower. Another has a STD330, two AC20s and two SRM6+A, More firepower, less agility. Give and take. Removing engine rating agility modifiers effectively takes away the KGC-000's variety and makes it a one build mech.

The skill tree makes up for these changes by allowing you to choose different skill paths to highlight different areas you deem important.

Well, at least it would if they made it linear instead of a tangled mess.

[Katastrophy Kid]

Ruar, on 26 April 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

The skill tree makes up for these changes by allowing you to choose different skill paths to highlight different areas you deem important.

Well, at least it would if they made it linear instead of a tangled mess.

After playing on the test server I can Definitively say that, no it doesn't. I maxed out the mobility tree and it didn't even come close.

[Katastrophy Kid]

I'd be open to making Engine Rating Modifiers Mech Class Dependent with diminishing returns based on mech weight.

[Ruar]

Source Mystic, on 26 April 2017 - 06:53 PM, said:

GO INTO THE TEST SERVER GET A LOCUST AND COMPLETELY FILL OUT THE MOBILITY TREE 25 % ACCELERATION
25 % DE-ACCELERATION THAT IS IT. Now go into the test area and hit w and hit s and see how that feels. now go into the normal game and get a locust and see the difference it is absurd. this is a nerf and do not even let anyone tell you lights will be fine. After this garbage drops on live servers no one will even bother with lights.

That's not a test. A test would be having a specific course to run with it timed and compared across several mechs to see how they stack up. Going by "feel" is not accurate enough to make a conclusion because we are all biased towards our own initial opinions.

And I could do such a test, but I'm not simply because I don't have enough experience in light mechs to create a valid test. I could slalom around some buildings but that isn't really enough to know how a light should be maneuvered in battle.

I tested the mech I have the most time in and it felt the same to me after I picked up the mobility skills.

Perhaps you could put more effort into actually testing and less into the propaganda that no one will play light mechs because they might not have the exact same accel/deccel. Every mech in the game is going to see changes based on what they are doing so until this goes live and we see a lot of people actually using it there is no real way to tell the total effect on agility/mobility the changes are going to have.

[Ruar]

Source Mystic, on 26 April 2017 - 07:17 PM, said:

Go test 200 mechs and do a extensive report I do not care. Anyone that runs lights will agree with me.

And yet... they don't. I've already seen posts regarding the decoupling from light pilots who say they don't see an issue on test.

[Cementi]

Lol to those saying Locusts and other lights will be useless.

my 2 kills 2 assists and 462 damage in a 4 v 4 match says otherwise.

Lights will be fine, if anything the agility nerfs hit the heaviest in each weight class the hardest which honestly is kind of fine. Gives people a reason to run something other than 35 tonners, 55 tonners, 75 tonners and 100 tonners.

[Katastrophy Kid]

Source Mystic, on 26 April 2017 - 07:03 PM, said:

sorry I disagree flat out for several reasons. One a locust going up against a atlas. The fastest least armored mech is going up against the most armored and slowest. So there should be a flat out superior of mobility in a light vs a atlas.

When I am in my locust do you hear me whining atlas has too much armor they should be nerfed? No because that is a atlas's strength and its role.

Why do I say this and this comes from experience of playing both assaults and lights.

First off this is a team based tactical shooter. An assault should not be isolated that far away from a team. In a awesome I can torso twist a single locust for like 3 to 4 minuets. when I see them coming I tell my team what grid I am in and that I need help. then start torso twisting like a boss. Then my team comes goodby locust. Team means you fill in and cooperate to win.

You do not take a assault and go after a light for the same reason simply that is not their role. What you are describing is a deficit of player style and whining that the lights touched you in a bad place. You should know your role and how to play it. Not whine that the game needs to adjust so you can win and kill things easier that is the difference between a bad player and a moderate to good player.

If you had bothered to read the entire post, hell the entire discussion, you'd notice that i wasn't referring to lights. I play every weight class, including my Pirate's Bane.

Edited by Katastrophe Kid, 26 April 2017 - 08:59 PM.

[Jikil]

I think engine decoupling can work but don't make it a blanket nerf for every mech in the game minus a few low engine mechs.

Just raise the agility to what it is on live pre talents but with a decent engine size. IE a timberwolf should handle like it does on live not like a heavy mech with a 300 engine.

[Marius Romanis]

Commander James Raynor, on 26 April 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

These numbers are from mechs without any bonuses, be it from the old skill system or the new skill tree.

So basically your saying your comparison is worthless and shows what you want it to show with half the data not the actual data of what mechs will be like with skills ?

What you've given us is worthless, old skill system might increase agility by 1% with new skill tree increasing agility by 500% ?

[Karl Streiger]

Source Mystic, on 26 April 2017 - 07:17 PM, said:

Go test 200 mechs and do a extensive report I do not care. Anyone that runs lights will agree with me.

everyone running assaults will agree with you.
However - i will drop the "expensive" and "heavy" engines - becaause don't give a damn about 2-3m/s more top speed.
relevant is acceleration and deceleration as well as turn and twist ability.

With blatant "tonnage" based mobility - i don't need 20 or more tons for f*****g 2 m/s.
The only stupid about it are Mechs with fixed engine like Executioner and Gargoyle - can we pls drop their engine rating by their tonnage?

more tons free = more weapons + LFE + other low mobility target - TTK will drop like a brick

Edited by Karl Streiger, 27 April 2017 - 01:24 AM.