Jump to content

Engine Decoupling, Why?


18 replies to this topic

#1 Arend

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 234 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:43 PM

What is the Goal of the Engine decoupling, all i see are Problems coming with that, on top of the Mess that is the new Skill Tree, nerfing Agility all over the Place, how is that helping to reduce the time to kill.
I really don't get it, whats accomplished trough it, besides enraging the Playerbase?

#2 Earl Walker

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Guillotine
  • Guillotine
  • 21 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 12:05 AM

im not a friend of the idea of the new skill tree but i can live with that... but the decoupling of engine makes the torso movement too slow ... if u want to bring it, pls increase group tonnage cause most ppl want to play daishi again :P

#3 Marius Romanis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 528 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 12:21 AM

The point is to make mediums twist faster/more mobile than heavies. if you want to invest fully in mobility you can still be as mobile.

#4 Arend

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 234 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 12:44 AM

View PostCadoAzazel, on 27 April 2017 - 12:21 AM, said:

The point is to make mediums twist faster/more mobile than heavies. if you want to invest fully in mobility you can still be as mobile.


Well they can't, overall this is a giant Nerf to the Mobility off almost all Mechs, even with full investment in the Skilltree, only Mechs that are benefing from this are Mechs with a small Engine Cap and the Result will be a even heavier bias on PFLD Gameplay and a reduced TTK, again i really can't see any benefits from this!

#5 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 19,685 posts
  • LocationGenau hier

Posted 27 April 2017 - 12:51 AM

View PostCadoAzazel, on 27 April 2017 - 12:21 AM, said:

The point is to make mediums twist faster/more mobile than heavies. if you want to invest fully in mobility you can still be as mobile.

Those heavys and assaults pay dearly to be as mobile.
Heck - it should not matter if you have a 20t Mech with a 100 Rating Engine or a Gargoyle with a 400 Rating Engine both should have the same mobility.
And this would not even be fair - because the engine weight is based on the tonnage balance for the Intro TT game.

I also want to know what the goal or the reason of this change is.
It doesn't make any sense:
  • not from logical (engine = drive train + myomer + + +)
  • not from tonnage balancing
    • not that any body seems to care even when tonnage is used for balancing in FP and group queue)
  • not even from the "TT" -
    • but the "speed" rating is already a broken translation


#6 oldradagast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 03:33 AM

Why? Because you're playing your mech in a role different from what PGI wants you to play.

You dared to change engine sizes to improve mobility. No more. PGI will tell you how mobile your mech can be. If you want a more mobile mech, buy a mech pack with a more mobile mech in it. Or, regrind up the mobility tree, but be sure to buy some premium time to get that over with faster.

Yeah - there's no good reason for it. It's just another nerf and another stupid way to handle a problem that doesn't really exist.

#7 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 19,685 posts
  • LocationGenau hier

Posted 27 April 2017 - 04:08 AM

because pictures of mechs seems to be the correct measure to deliver the message

what about the Hunchback IIC and a Night Sky?

Posted Image


Really - I just the harder I try the less i understand the change. Can anybody give me just one only one clue why this change is necessary?

#8 Monkey Lover

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 7,251 posts
  • LocationWazan

Posted 27 April 2017 - 04:59 AM

Goal looks like to nerf large engine clan mechs to me. IS mechs haven't been using these large engine anyway.

#9 Katastrophy Kid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fearless
  • The Fearless
  • 122 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 27 April 2017 - 05:21 AM

View PostCadoAzazel, on 27 April 2017 - 12:21 AM, said:

The point is to make mediums twist faster/more mobile than heavies. if you want to invest fully in mobility you can still be as mobile.


I played mechs in every weight class on the test server: Locust, Phoenix Hawk, Marauder, Cyclops and King Crab. The mobility skil tree doesn't even come close to making up for the loss. In fact the effects were negligable. My biggest issue with the engine decoupling is that it makes my mechs less responsive and sluggish as well as taking away an important customization element from me. I don't understand what problem is being solved.

Edited by Katastrophe Kid, 27 April 2017 - 05:24 AM.


#10 Pr8Dator2

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts
  • LocationCareer Clanner

Posted 27 April 2017 - 05:28 AM

View PostKatastrophe Kid, on 27 April 2017 - 05:21 AM, said:

I played mechs in every weight class on the test server: Locust, Phoenix Hawk, Marauder, Cyclops and King Crab. The mobility skil tree doesn't even come close to making up for the loss. In fact the effects were negligable. My biggest issue with the engine decoupling is that it makes my mechs less responsive and sluggish as well as taking away an important customization element from me. I don't understand what problem is being solved.


Its not just you, it does that to EVERYONE so its fair and slows the current power creepy combat down to more beginner friendly levels... in my opinion, its fine as its a baseline change rather than just hitting specific favorite mechs.

#11 Katastrophy Kid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fearless
  • The Fearless
  • 122 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 27 April 2017 - 05:32 AM

View PostMonkey Lover, on 27 April 2017 - 04:59 AM, said:

Goal looks like to nerf large engine clan mechs to me. IS mechs haven't been using these large engine anyway.


I do, often. When I want mobility and agility over firepower, then I commit tonnage to a larger engine. For example, my KGC-000. Two ac20s and a std360 has improved target tracking, speed and agility in exchange for less firepower vs a std330 two ac20s and two srm6+a. The proposed change takes away the incentive to use a larger engine and reduces the build variety.

#12 Answer74

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 27 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 27 April 2017 - 05:36 AM

View PostKarl Streiger, on 27 April 2017 - 04:08 AM, said:

because pictures of mechs seems to be the correct measure to deliver the message

what about the Hunchback IIC and a Night Sky?

Posted Image


Really - I just the harder I try the less i understand the change. Can anybody give me just one only one clue why this change is necessary?

Wait, shouldn't the engine size to tonnage ratio determine the speed and twist characteristics?

#13 Katastrophy Kid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fearless
  • The Fearless
  • 122 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 27 April 2017 - 05:37 AM

View PostPr8Dator2, on 27 April 2017 - 05:28 AM, said:


Its not just you, it does that to EVERYONE so its fair and slows the current power creepy combat down to more beginner friendly levels... in my opinion, its fine as its a baseline change rather than just hitting specific favorite mechs.


Well I like the way my mechs handle without the change. Its irrelivant whether it affects everyone equally, which it demonstrably dosen't. Decoupling deminishes gameplay. Its not as fun to me and in the end thats what matters.

Edited by Katastrophe Kid, 27 April 2017 - 05:42 AM.


#14 SmokedJag

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 371 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:01 AM

View PostArend, on 27 April 2017 - 12:44 AM, said:


Well they can't, overall this is a giant Nerf to the Mobility off almost all Mechs, even with full investment in the Skilltree, only Mechs that are benefing from this are Mechs with a small Engine Cap and the Result will be a even heavier bias on PFLD Gameplay and a reduced TTK, again i really can't see any benefits from this!


It's intended as a hard design nerf to running oversized engines. They've been very clear on that.

#15 Arend

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 234 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:06 AM

View PostSmokedJag, on 27 April 2017 - 06:01 AM, said:


It's intended as a hard design nerf to running oversized engines. They've been very clear on that.


Well but what is the benefit and reasoning from that nerf, i can't see any, only a few Mechs with low engine Ratings will benefit and overall it will be a decrease in TTK, which is contrary to their Goals!

#16 Genesis23

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 224 posts
  • LocationKanton Bern, Switzerland

Posted 22 May 2017 - 04:20 AM

i kinda like the change. piloting mechs dozens of tons heavy and expecting them to move like balerinas doesnt make any sense. now they feel as slow and heavy as one should expect.

the main point could be, that the heavies profited most of the engine bound mobility. they used often the same engines as mediums, but with more space for more equipment, thus making most mediums completely obsolete. why play mediums when you can have the same mobility with more guns and more armor? now with the decoupling this issue is solved and rightly so.

#17 Thrudvangar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 622 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 05:22 AM

View PostGenesis23, on 22 May 2017 - 04:20 AM, said:

i kinda like the change. piloting mechs dozens of tons heavy and expecting them to move like balerinas doesnt make any sense. now they feel as slow and heavy as one should expect.


#18 The Basilisk

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,038 posts
  • LocationFrankfurt a.M.

Posted 22 May 2017 - 08:01 AM

Engine desync has multiple benefits.

-- For ppl not going with the then current meta of "put as many engine in as you can because everything in your mech did benefit from it" the mechs actually got more mobile than before (at least for me and some in my unit that is the case.)

-- There are now more viable reasons not to use the biggest possible engine. You actually got a choice now for bringing a smaler than max engine without sacrificing too much in terms of survivability.

-- The characteristics of the mechs don't get too distorted by putting in a larger engine. Especially some of the mechs with very high engine cap would have yielded hillarious results with the skilltree.

-- Blancing of mechs is more controllable since you don't have to take the specific enginecap of a mech into account. (no minmax loopholes for crazy builds)

-- The feeling of larger mechs got "better" in terms of piloting a huge lumbering warmachiene and not some armed nascar sh..

Edited by The Basilisk, 22 May 2017 - 08:03 AM.


#19 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,045 posts
  • LocationStranded on Isla Nublar

Posted 22 May 2017 - 09:08 AM

Quote

Engine desync has multiple benefits.


except those benefits arnt what we got...

instead we got an inconsistent mess with tons of outliers that have way more or less agility than they should have.

like 95 ton executioners being 4 times more agile than 100 ton kodiaks. and even more agile than timberwolves....

or 70 ton summoners as agile as 35-40 tonners

or arctic cheetahs that feel like youre piloting a garbage truck

Instead of engine desync focusing on fixing weight class imbalance, they tried to use engine desync to balance IS vs Clan and they screwed the whole thing up. youd think they wouldve learned from previously making the same mistake with quirks that it was a bad idea. But nope.

They need to redo engine desync and make it consistent this time. Get rid of the ridiculous outliers. And dont overpenalize clan mechs.

Edited by Khobai, 22 May 2017 - 09:13 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users