Jump to content

Stop Engine Desync, Here's Why


77 replies to this topic

#21 Sjorpha

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,472 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 27 April 2017 - 04:44 AM

View PostKarl Streiger, on 27 April 2017 - 04:37 AM, said:

But how fast can you accelerate from stand to your topspeed? How fast can you stop?
You are correct about the turning - and of course turning is dependend on speed and mass.
But on the other hand - mechs should be able
to side strafe,
turn 180° on a dime in no time when standing still,
crouch,
climb over obstacles lower than their knee....
press flat against a cover


Just because we can't get all kinds stuff doesn't mean we shouldn't add anything.

A relation between turning and speed etc is already a well explored area in gaming featuring vehicles, PGI could just take some of the tried and tested things that other vehicle games have and add it to the driving experience in MWO.

I think just feeling that effect of your speed and other physics would make driving mechs so much more fun.

Edited by Sjorpha, 27 April 2017 - 04:45 AM.


#22 MMoonSetW

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 44 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 04:46 AM

View PostSjorpha, on 27 April 2017 - 04:33 AM, said:


It's definitely a driving simulator, it's a simulation of driving a giant robot. It's also a shooter. I see no contradiction here.

Twisting the torso and turning your legs are different things though, I'm talking about turning here.

It's just like when you are running as fast as you can, you are free to twist your upper body about as fast usual as long as you keep track of where you're running and compensate your balance, which happens intuitively, but you can't turn your legs on a dime without falling or sliding. So I'm not suggesting twist speed should be affected, only turning speed.

I'm bringing this up because I thing driving fast mechs in this game lacks immersion, not because they are too fast but because they don't behave as a fast vehicle should. In fact I think the whole driving experience is a little too bland and sometimes feel too much like a normal FPS.

Jumpjets would be more interesting as a driving tool in this scenario too, turning in the air could be a way to turn faster, but if you do you should experience a slight drift/slide depending on the surface as you land.

I would also introduce different gravity for different maps, like HPG should definitely have low gravity. Earlier mechwarrior titles had varying gravity so it's a true and tested concept in the franchise. Also water should slow you down a bit if it's deep and you're trying to run fast.

MWO has extremely underdeveloped physics in general, and it's a shame.

I think when you click into the mech specs you will see that turn rate does indeed decrease with current speed, but the degree of the effect is questionable.

#23 Kuaron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Senior Captain
  • Senior Captain
  • 1,105 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 04:49 AM

View PostMMoonSetW, on 27 April 2017 - 04:35 AM, said:

To nerf something you dont have to make it worse, just buff the smaller engines. One possible solution would be letting engine matter less when it comes to agility, but keep the top rating engine untouched. (the smaller the engine the more it gets buffed) That way at least you are not breaking anything.

So... doing about the same as with the desync, but letting Mechs twist and spin even more on average?
No thanks.

#24 Sjorpha

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,472 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 27 April 2017 - 04:50 AM

View PostMMoonSetW, on 27 April 2017 - 04:46 AM, said:

I think when you click into the mech specs you will see that turn rate does indeed decrease with current speed, but the degree of the effect is questionable.


Maybe, my experience is that turning at top speed in a fast mech feels weird and artificial right now because I naturally expect a greater g-force impact, and this breaks immersion for me. If there is such an effect it must be very slight.

#25 MMoonSetW

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 44 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 04:55 AM

View PostKuaron, on 27 April 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

So... doing about the same as with the desync, but letting Mechs twist and spin even more on average?
No thanks.

No it's not desync, it's just each point of engine power won't add as much acceleration, and the top acceleration of a certain mech will remain the same. Twist rate should be the same as it is now.
EDIT: And that's in the case of smaller engines really being weaker.

Edited by MMoonSetW, 27 April 2017 - 04:58 AM.


#26 MMoonSetW

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 44 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 05:18 AM

Some afterthought: It's totally OK that someone wants to have a slower mech with more guns, but don't mess with my mech because it's mine.

#27 Kuaron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Senior Captain
  • Senior Captain
  • 1,105 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 05:26 AM

View PostMMoonSetW, on 27 April 2017 - 04:55 AM, said:

No it's not desync, it's just each point of engine power won't add as much acceleration, and the top acceleration of a certain mech will remain the same. Twist rate should be the same as it is now.
EDIT: And that's in the case of smaller engines really being weaker.

Ah, ok, sounds better. But I'd still reduce overall agility (incl. twisting) on average, for the reasons Sjorpha called.
This wouldn't mean that a Mech with a big engine wouldn't still be faster than others by comparison.

Edited by Kuaron, 27 April 2017 - 05:31 AM.


#28 pyroknight

    Rookie

  • The Decimator
  • The Decimator
  • 4 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:11 AM

I'm a fan of the desync for increasing mech customization and diversity.
Previously if a bulky mech wanted to have any agility at all, it needed to run near max engine size. It was practically a requirement. Now a mech is free to choose the engine size it wants, and can use the skill tree to determine its agility.
Yes some mechs are punished by the change, but some mechs are also liberated.

#29 MMoonSetW

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 44 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:26 AM

View Postpyroknight, on 27 April 2017 - 06:11 AM, said:

I'm a fan of the desync for increasing mech customization and diversity.
Previously if a bulky mech wanted to have any agility at all, it needed to run near max engine size. It was practically a requirement. Now a mech is free to choose the engine size it wants, and can use the skill tree to determine its agility.
Yes some mechs are punished by the change, but some mechs are also liberated.


Desync does not actually increase variety because PGI will dictate the handling characteristics and force a mech into a role that they see fit. (e.g now HBKIIC is a terrible hill humper due to much lower agility and it is forced into some other role, where before the change HBKIIC can be configured to do whatever the pilot wants it to do.)

EDIT: and like I said, I'm totally OK with encouraging people to try slower builds, but not at the cost of losing the other end of the spectrum.

Edited by MMoonSetW, 27 April 2017 - 06:29 AM.


#30 Necro Ash

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 66 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:28 AM

I just see a simple comparison with engine desyncs.

If you swap out the engine in a car to something more powerful, does the steering change ?

#31 MMoonSetW

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 44 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:33 AM

View PostNecro Ash, on 27 April 2017 - 06:28 AM, said:

I just see a simple comparison with engine desyncs.

If you swap out the engine in a car to something more powerful, does the steering change ?


No, the steering does not change, but the acceleration most definitely will. Also, a car's steering is different than that of a mech. To make a closer comparison, if you have double the muscle, you surely will run faster, accelerate faster and turn quicker.

#32 Dogstar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,722 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationLondon

Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:51 AM

View PostKarl Streiger, on 27 April 2017 - 04:37 AM, said:

But on the other hand - mechs should be able
to side strafe,
turn 180° on a dime in no time when standing still,
crouch,
climb over obstacles lower than their knee....
press flat against a cover


You're right and we should be asking PGI to implement some of those features - although as far as I'm aware mechs can already climb over most obstacles lower than their knees but side strafing and crouching would be utterly fantastic!

#33 Shadowspawn42

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 46 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:58 AM

So if this is a nerf to people running over sized engines, is it a buff to those who run undersized engines?

I only go 54 KPH in my heavy because I sacked speed for firepower. Am I going to gain, lose, or stay the same with the new system.

Not that I care about how it affects my mech. I am very luke warm about engine decoupling. But it doesnt seem like its going to help much....just piss people off.

#34 MMoonSetW

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 44 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:02 AM

View PostShadowspawn42, on 27 April 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

So if this is a nerf to people running over sized engines, is it a buff to those who run undersized engines?

I only go 54 KPH in my heavy because I sacked speed for firepower. Am I going to gain, lose, or stay the same with the new system.

Not that I care about how it affects my mech. I am very luke warm about engine decoupling. But it doesnt seem like its going to help much....just piss people off.

'A good way to find out whether you are gonna gain or lose is to just look at other heavy mechs. If you are now slower than them, IN GENERAL you are gaining, and vice versa.

#35 Lily from animove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 13,891 posts
  • LocationOn a dropship to Terra

Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:05 AM

What it nerfs is some of the XL advantages. if you have a mech that is not Xl firendly you only cna choose STD (or be a madman trying) and then next to less weapon laodout and less speed you also geta kobility nerf.

the change to decouple makes the STD beeign less gimped compared to it's XL counterpart a mech can choose by either upping the size with an Xl, or using the same size and having more pewpew.

especially when STD omnimechs arrive for the IS his is going to be important otherwise imagine the old system with an STD Ominmech. Thats the worst preset one can get.

View PostDogstar, on 27 April 2017 - 06:51 AM, said:


You're right and we should be asking PGI to implement some of those features - although as far as I'm aware mechs can already climb over most obstacles lower than their knees but side strafing and crouching would be utterly fantastic!


it laters relations between engines. it lowers the gap between XL and STD. it lowers the gap between underengined Omnimechs and overengineed ones. think about SCR vs NVA. But for soem emchs like the GArgooyle or the Linebacker it is soemwhat bad as they are already considered overengined and with their omnimech nature you cannot rebuild around that nerf by lowerin the engine somewhat.

Buff or nerf nheavily depends on the mech and it's previous playstyle.

Edited by Lily from animove, 27 April 2017 - 07:10 AM.


#36 MMoonSetW

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 44 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:20 AM

Yeah desync will punish those overengined omnimechs, but the most punished will be the battlemechs which start with a small engine and then chose to go with a top rating one. When desynced that mech will just have horrible handling because someone in PGI thinks that it should be slow and the original playstyle will get broken.

And getting a larger engine isn't that advantageous to begin with, especially when you go beyond the 300 line.

#37 SmokedJag

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 384 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:01 AM

View PostMMoonSetW, on 27 April 2017 - 07:20 AM, said:

Yeah desync will punish those overengined omnimechs, but the most punished will be the battlemechs which start with a small engine and then chose to go with a top rating one. When desynced that mech will just have horrible handling because someone in PGI thinks that it should be slow and the original playstyle will get broken.

And getting a larger engine isn't that advantageous to begin with, especially when you go beyond the 300 line.


For about the umpteenth time, look at the quirk log. The Garg etc. had their ability quirks moved to base stats (far right column). If anything they'll be relatively quicker with peers getting hit.

#38 MMoonSetW

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 44 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 09:47 PM

View PostSmokedJag, on 27 April 2017 - 08:01 AM, said:

For about the umpteenth time, look at the quirk log. The Garg etc. had their ability quirks moved to base stats (far right column). If anything they'll be relatively quicker with peers getting hit.

Sure I looked at the stats, and the reality is that you just pointed out the mechs that they did it right, not the ones they screwed up.

#39 The Lighthouse

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 11:47 PM

Locust, even after 'proper' compensation by PGI, moves like a trailer truck with engine desync.

Just admit the fact that PGI will never properly balance the game and this will actually make things worse.

#40 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,369 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 27 April 2017 - 11:59 PM

View PostMMoonSetW, on 27 April 2017 - 07:20 AM, said:

Yeah desync will punish those overengined omnimechs, but the most punished will be the battlemechs which start with a small engine and then chose to go with a top rating one. When desynced that mech will just have horrible handling because someone in PGI thinks that it should be slow and the original playstyle will get broken.

And getting a larger engine isn't that advantageous to begin with, especially when you go beyond the 300 line.

Well as far as i understand the desync will ignore any engine. So any 50t Mech will behave the same (minus quirks)

So this guy:
Posted Image

Will be as mobile as this one:
Posted Image
100XL vs 350XL

I'm pretty sure there is an average "mobility" sweet spot - for example (tonnage rating x 4) that would have the same mobility as now - anything above will get nerfed anything below will get buffed.
But this depends on the "average" - it could also be x6 for lights, x5 for meds, x4 for heavys x3 for assaults

However, this change goes completely in the wrong direction.
Rather than the rating - the engine weight x crits should be considered

For example, a Mech with 350 STD moves faster than those with 350XL - of course the gain in mobility should not be linear - this would be stupid,





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users