77 replies to this topic

[MMoonSetW]

The main purpose of engine desync was described as to encourage slower builds with more firepower, and also removing some of the benefits of the clan mechs. However, this change to the system has several major drawbacks, and I'm going to address them one by one.

1.Who is engine desync really nerfing?
If you like running, for example, XL 275 hunchbacks, or in general anyone who likes to have engines above the average of that chassis or tonnage, then yes you are getting punished by this change. This is the case because the new system will get everyone to the same level in terms of agility, so if you like (relative to tonnage) large engines, you lose the benefit of added agility. This change is a nerf to all players who prefer speed over firepower, instead of a nerf to the clans. (Just think about Cicada and Assassin, which tend to have huge engines, are now pulled back closer to their peers. And if you like XL320s or above in a Cicada, then you're losing even more.) Overall the change is punishing a playstyle, not the clans. (Whether all the clan mechs deserve a nerf is still a question, but it is another topic.)

2.You should not have someone else determine how your mech handles.
Under the old system you can change acceleration and deceleration by simply changing the engine, so you have full control over the handling characteristics of your mech, and that's great because it gives players the freedom to do whatever they want with their mechs. With the new system, we can only change acceleration by changing how we distribute the skill points, and even if we have all the mobility nodes unlocked we are only having about the same benefit as the old system. Essentially you lose a degree of freedom because of this change, and there's no reason we should allow that to happen.

3.Desyncing your engine also desyncs your team.
There's no doubt that desyncing the engine will increase the number of slower mechs per game, which might be described as "encouraging variety", but also causes the teams to scatter out. This will decrease the ability for a team to execute and synchronize tactics especially in quick play, which will result in a lack of the ability of players to work as a team.

TL;DR: Desyncing does not do what it says to do, it punishes a playstyle, not the clan mechs. It also gives you less room for customization, which goes against its original purpose of increasing variety. Last but not least it will have a negative impact on gameplay. In conclusion we should stop desyncing our engines to the agility stats.

[Dogstar]

Have you actually tried your mechs with the engine desync?

I just finished testing my Assassin, Black Knight, Battlemaster, and Cyclops and they all felt nicely agile. A bit slower to accelerate and decelerate but I haven't applied any skill points to any of them.

Engine desync has no effect on top speed - so a fast mech in the live game is still a fast mech after this goes live, and, as I've just pointed out, agility (twisting and turning) is still good.

[naterist]

All agility quirks are there still, so mechs that are based in agility are still buffed in agility just via their base stats, it just isnt presented in the quirks field anymore. My mechs without the reliance on that speed still feel reasonable with minimal investment in the agility tree, and theres the capacity to improve it still if i dont mind giving up all the bonus armour and structure in the survival tree. Only problem is respec tax. Mechanics -wise, its good.

[MMoonSetW]

Dogstar, on 27 April 2017 - 01:17 AM, said:

Have you actually tried your mechs with the engine desync?

I just finished testing my Assassin, Black Knight, Battlemaster, and Cyclops and they all felt nicely agile. A bit slower to accelerate and decelerate but I haven't applied any skill points to any of them.

Engine desync has no effect on top speed - so a fast mech in the live game is still a fast mech after this goes live, and, as I've just pointed out, agility (twisting and turning) is still good.

Sure I tried my mechs, HBKIIC is now significantly slower (not PTS2 CTF slow, cuz that was a bug, but still a very noticeable difference even after a 20% acceleration and deceleration skill).
Pretty sure they did buff some baseline stats of traditionally agile mech (like the Assassin). And the rest of the mech you mentioned are not very fast mechs to begin with.

Problem I have is even with some mechs that are not known for speed I tend to go with the top engine rating to get the most agility (for example the HBKIIC), and I was fine with it. In the new system PGI thinks that HBKIIC should be slow and gave it an average agility, and locks it to that fixed value regardless what I want to do with it. I simply want to retain my freedom to do whatever I want to my mech.

EDIT: just took a look at the acceleration chart before and post change, the difference is huge. Before it starts at about 70 at 0kph (the current version does not display the exact numbers, but I can tell it's way over 50), now it's 24.03 at 0kph.

Edited by MMoonSetW, 27 April 2017 - 02:36 AM.

[MMoonSetW]

Whether you go with a middle of the road engine (FOR THAT CHASSIS) or one that's near the top rating is purely your choice of playstyle, and the desync is now going to punish you if you choose agility and speed. (Quite frankly I chose the top 275 engine on my HBK mainly for the added agility, less so for the speed.)

[MMoonSetW]

naterist, on 27 April 2017 - 01:24 AM, said:

All agility quirks are there still, so mechs that are based in agility are still buffed in agility just via their base stats, it just isnt presented in the quirks field anymore. My mechs without the reliance on that speed still feel reasonable with minimal investment in the agility tree, and theres the capacity to improve it still if i dont mind giving up all the bonus armour and structure in the survival tree. Only problem is respec tax. Mechanics -wise, its good.

Yes, in the new system a mech is only agile if PGI thinks it should be agile, not if a player wants it to. To get it more agile, we still need to pay for it in the old system in terms of tonnage, but the new system just completely eliminates the possibility to do it.

Edited by MMoonSetW, 27 April 2017 - 02:50 AM.

[SmokedJag]

MMoonSetW, on 27 April 2017 - 02:48 AM, said:

Yes, in the new system a mech is only agile if PGI thinks it should be agile, not if a player wants it to. To get it more agile, we still need to pay for it in the old system in terms of tonnage, but the new system just completely eliminates the possibility to do it.

This is quite a bit easier for developers to balance you know. And yes it is intended to nerf running the largest engine possible to make the 'Mech do everything faster. They've been clear on that.

PGI isn't blind on this, by the way. The most potentially hurt chassis (mediocre Clan OmniMechs with fixed engines) have their agility quirks in their hard stats.

Edited by SmokedJag, 27 April 2017 - 03:03 AM.

[MMoonSetW]

Then they are simply nerfing a pretty big part of the player base that isn't doing OP things to begin with, good luck to PGI.
EDIT: and I don't see why not just keep the stats for all top rating engines and buff the rest of the engines. Nerfing will break stuff easier than buffing.

Edited by MMoonSetW, 27 April 2017 - 03:07 AM.

[Kuaron]

I don't like the desynch from a simulation/immersion perspective, but I don't regard your points as valid.

@ 1: Big engine nerf is exactly what was intended. If the Mech is underperforming when being slow, it's agility can be set above average by hand by PGI.

@ 2: Uh... ok, kinda valid.

@ 3: I don't expect to see this effect in action. Mainly the desync just lets you twist and peek worse if you did so by using an oversized engine before.

Still, I would have preferred to see another way to nerf big engine that would actually make more sense, probably something about heatsinks. Like making all engine HS, including the extra ones put into its slots, into singles, and compensate somewhere else to adjust the average heat cap.

[oldradagast]

Engine desync is idiotic. It is a "solution" for a problem that doesn't exist. If a handful of mechs are too mobile, put an effective cap on THEIR mobility, and leave it at that. Don't upend the entire game's mobility system to fix a few oddballs.

Engine decoupling forces mechs into certain roles - roles that PGI will decide, not you - and reduces build variety because taking a different than "normal" size engine now produces fewer benefits. I don't recall this game needing LESS variety in builds and mech roles.

I also hate it because PGI is going to make the decisions for us. They are going to tell you what your mech role is and how it behaves, and if that differs from what you've been using and enjoying for the past 4 years now, tough luck. Buy another mechpack, and maybe those mechs will do what you want them to do... hahaha. No.

Edited by oldradagast, 27 April 2017 - 03:26 AM.

[MMoonSetW]

Kuaron, on 27 April 2017 - 03:13 AM, said:

I don't like the desynch from a simulation/immersion perspective, but I don't regard your points as valid.

@ 1: Big engine nerf is exactly what was intended. If the Mech is underperforming when being slow, it's agility can be set above average by hand by PGI.

@ 2: Uh... ok, kinda valid.

@ 3: I don't expect to see this effect in action. Mainly the desync just lets you twist and peek worse if you did so by using an oversized engine before.

Still, I would have preferred to see another way to nerf big engine that would actually make more sense, probably something about heatsinks. Like making all engine HS, including the extra ones put into its slots, into singles, and compensate somewhere else to adjust the average heat cap.

I don't see the problem with peeking or twisting, they are valid tactics and players should benefit from executing them the right way, which is large engines and more agility.

[Kuaron]

They are valid tactics, but also valid parameters where mechs or equipment parts can be nerfed, if they are supposed to, without making them slow overall.

Edited by Kuaron, 27 April 2017 - 03:48 AM.

[MMoonSetW]

Kuaron, on 27 April 2017 - 03:48 AM, said:

They are valid tactics, but also valid parameters where mechs or equipment parts can be nerfed, if they are supposed to, without making them slow overall.

But you still can't give a reason to nerf them in the first place, they are by no means OP, they are just good tactics that are very situational.

[Sjorpha]

I think that engine should determine speed, acceleration and deceleration.

The mech/tonnage should determine twisting and turning speed.

That's just how I intuitively would expect a machine to work in relation to it's engine power.

Now I like the idea of making mechs a bit slower and less agile in general, so they feel a little more like the big clunky retro-scifi vehicles they are supposed to be. That could of course be done regardless what system is used for agility stats.

I also think your speed should affect your turning because of the g-forces, just like a car or bike can't make as sharp turns when it's going very fast neither should a mech be able to turn on a dime when running top speed.

Having to control your speed in relation to how sharply you need to turn, like in a racing game, would add some more skill and complexity to the driving experience, and that would be great IMO. Maybe we'd get away from everyone just holding down W and start actually using the speed controls.

[Kuaron]

MMoonSetW, on 27 April 2017 - 03:58 AM, said:

But you still can't give a reason to nerf them in the first place, they are by no means OP, they are just good tactics that are very situational.

Because you already did:

MMoonSetW, on 27 April 2017 - 01:08 AM, said:

The main purpose of engine desync was described as to encourage slower builds with more firepower, and also removing some of the benefits of the clan mechs. However, this change to the system has several major drawbacks, and I'm going to address them one by one.

To nerf oversized engines you have to... let them do something worse than before.
Peeking and twisting is a viable candidate for being this "something".

[Arend]

Sjorpha, on 27 April 2017 - 04:01 AM, said:

Now I like the idea of making mechs a bit slower and less agile in general, so they feel a little more like the big clunky retro-scifi vehicles they are supposed to be. That could of course be done regardless what system is used for agility stats.

I also think your speed should affect your turning because of the g-forces, just like a car or bike can't make as sharp turns when it's going very fast neither should a mech be able to turn on a dime when running top speed.

Having to control your speed in relation to how sharply you need to turn, like in a racing game, would add some more skill and complexity to the driving experience, and that would be great IMO. Maybe we'd get away from everyone just holding down W and start actually using the speed controls.

But this Game is not a Driving Simulator, its mainly a Shooter and by nerfing the agility of almost all Mechs, you lower the time to kill and shift the Meta even more to a poptart PFLD Style of Gameplay, cause if you can't twist the best way to mitigate DMG is Poptarting!

Edited by Arend, 27 April 2017 - 04:14 AM.

[Kuaron]

Arend, on 27 April 2017 - 04:13 AM, said:

But this Game is not a Driving Simulator, its mainly a Shooter and by nerfing the agility of almost all Mechs, you lower the time to kill and shift the Meta even more to a poptart PFLD Style of Gameplay, cause if you can't twist the best way to mitigate DMG is Poptarting!

In my ideal world, the TTK of Mechs is being guaranteed by their armour actually blocking hits, instead of bags of hitpoints twisting and spinning around like headless chicken...

[Sjorpha]

Arend, on 27 April 2017 - 04:13 AM, said:

But this Game is not a Driving Simulator, its mainly a Shooter and by nerfing the agility of almost all Mechs, you lower the time to kill and shift the Meta even more to a poptart PFLD Style of Gameplay, cause if you can't twist the best way to mitigate DMG is Poptarting!

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.

Edited by Sjorpha, 27 April 2017 - 04:35 AM.

[MMoonSetW]

Kuaron, on 27 April 2017 - 04:06 AM, said:

Because you already did:



To nerf oversized engines you have to... let them do something worse than before.
Peeking and twisting is a viable candidate for being this "something".

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.

[Karl Streiger]

Sjorpha, 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.

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

MMoonSetW, 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.

buff smaller engine? For what? They weight next to nothing - you need to buff the bigger engines (drop the rating and consider the weight and crits only)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 27 April 2017 - 04:39 AM.