88 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Khobai, on 24 May 2017 - 06:10 AM, said:

I have to disagree with bigger engines giving more agility. the whole primary purpose of engine decoupling was to prevent heavies with bigger engines from having an agility advantage over mediums.

there should be an average baseline agility for each tonnage. and all mechs should fall within no more than say a 10% variation from that baseline. that allows for some variation since some mechs should be more agile than others, but prevents any outliers from existing.

Two edged sword... one one hand you are sacrificing much for a bigger engine heavy / assault.

They should get some edge for this.... Look Mechs like Gargoyle or Executioner - or Falconer or Exterminator if they ever made it can hardly provide the fire power they should as heavy or assault.

the only thing you can do is to make them more mobile.

However what you can do - is to PUT a "BASE mobility" Rating - and when you drop your engine weight than you get punished. hard - full auto nerf gun

So this grant the Gargoyle ~ mobility of a 60ton Mech but if you could have a Spartan 400 rated STD it might behave like a 55-60t mech too - but dropping engine towards a 300- they should behave like a Atlas

Edited by Karl Streiger, 24 May 2017 - 06:17 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Dracol, on 24 May 2017 - 06:05 AM, said:

A lighter weight car does not guarentee it will out turn a semi, especially one made specifically for racing. Take a Ford Focus with bald, over sized tires that has been lifted (so high center of gravity) and put it against a supped up racing semi with fresh tires, low center of gravity, and designed so air resistance is utilized to put down ward force to help maintain traction. That semi will out turn the much lighter car. Weight is not the only variable when determining agility.

I'd dispute your assertion based on one variable that you overlooked which is length of the vehicle. A tricked out semi will never out turn a Ford Focus for one simple reason: length. A Ford Focus wheelbase is 104.3" while a Mack Pinnacle semi is 227". By physics alone, we can see that the Pinnacle would have at least twice the turn radius of the Ford Focus. You cannot ignore the laws of physics and make that Pinnacle turn in a smaller diameter then it's wheelbase. It ain't happening.

[Khobai]

Quote

Two edged sword... one one hand you are sacrificing much for a bigger engine heavy / assault.

not really. CXL means there is no real sacrifice.

Quote

They should get some edge for this.... Look Mechs like Gargoyle or Executioner - or Falconer or Exterminator if they ever made it can hardly provide the fire power they should as heavy or assault

the only thing you can do is to make them more mobile.

And im not saying they shouldnt be more mobile. Just no more than 10% more mobile.

An executioner should not be 4 times more agile than a Kodiak. Thats stupid. period.

Edited by Khobai, 24 May 2017 - 06:19 AM.

[Hopeasusi]

Dracol, on 24 May 2017 - 06:05 AM, said:

A lighter weight car does not guarentee it will out turn a semi, especially one made specifically for racing. Take a Ford Focus with bald, over sized tires that has been lifted (so high center of gravity) and put it against a supped up racing semi with fresh tires, low center of gravity, and designed so air resistance is utilized to put down ward force to help maintain traction. That semi will out turn the much lighter car. Weight is not the only variable when determining agility.

Not the only, but we only have propose build combat mech in game. So racecar vs racetruck is what you are looking and a racecar will out manuver a racetruck everytime.

Not to mention racecars and trucks both have horrible turning radiuses, cause they don't need to turn 360 in small circle. All that space for allowing wheels to turn far is used for other things in race vehicles. So a fail argument is a fail.

Please stop trolling mate.

Ps. Dear Karl, yes Dragon 1C is meta, just go ask any IS pro player. Battlemaster 2C+3 Dragon 1Cs is 265tons of pure meta. Also neither got nerfed badly by skill tree.

Edited by Hopeasusi, 24 May 2017 - 06:22 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Khobai, on 24 May 2017 - 06:17 AM, said:

And im not saying they shouldnt be more mobile. Just no more than 10%.

in case of gargolye this might compare it with Loki or Thunderbolt.... and I really think that the Assault sized medium should outmanouver those guys. (I would not think so when it got ES and can drop some engine heat sinks... give the Gargoyle 26-28tons of module capacity and you are correct.

However the problem is again Clan vs Clan or the Omni Rules vs BattleMech Build rules. If all Clan Omnis are "optimized" like TBR or SCR you could do that 10% stuff

[Angel of Annihilation]

Hopeasusi, on 23 May 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

Hi fellow warriors.

This last patch gave us the engine decoupling.
A very good idea, but done badly. There is no consistency in their system, that was supposed to bring consistency in how agile mechs of same weight should be.

So I propose a simple fix to this inconsistency.
It comes in two different parts:

1. Acceleration/deceleration

Acceleration should be power to weight ratio -> engine to tonnage ratio.
With an added multiplier for each mech class, smallest to assaults and highest to lights.

engine/tonnage*mech class = accelaration/deceleration values for a mech.

Why?
So that there is a reason for having a BIG engine. Now big engine isn't really worth it, cause you only gain max speed for massive weight. Of course turning and twist would not be in any relation to the engine size.
Also a tad of realism would be nice and all, where it's possible(also not gimping balance badly).

2. Agility(turning, twist speed and so on).

Agility should be a simple formula of: weight = base agility value for a mech.
Then you can add small variations. Like around 10-15% from the base value for different mechs to make them more unique and different feeling.

Mech tonnage base value+small variable = mechs agility

Ones again a simple formula for consistency.
Like this engine decouple would be a real buff lighter mechs. As they could always out turn and out twist larger mechs.

Ps. I just want a system that is fair and not a hot mess with no consistency at all.
Thus I leave the numbers to balance overlords.

Your missing the point. The point isn't consistency, rather it is balance. If you look at all the acceleration numbers, the mechs that got hit with the agility nerf bat are almost universally the top performing Clan mechs. Under performing mechs generally got a boost as far as I can tell.

The biggest hits are to the Kodiak, Night Gyr, Timber Wolf, MAD IIC, Stormcrow, etc.

In a way it is a great way to balance over performing mechs because it is a stat that only effects the individual chassis or in some cases an individual variant but it does make for some very inconsistent performance in a given weight range.

[Khobai]

Quote

However the problem is again Clan vs Clan or the Omni Rules vs BattleMech Build rules. If all Clan Omnis are "optimized" like TBR or SCR you could do that 10% stuff

You have failed to convince me why a 95 ton executioner needs to be four times more agile than a 100 ton direwolf.

Quote

Your missing the point. The point isn't consistency, rather it is balance.

No youre missing the point. The point is the game should be balanced in ways that actually make sense. We shouldnt have Executioners that are four times more agile than Direwolves. That simply doesnt make sense. It ruins immersion. There should not be absurd amounts of disparity in agility between mechs that are only 5 tons apart.

Its like having two 60 ton abrams tanks. One actually drives like youd expect a 60 ton abrams tank. While the other one flies around like a fighter jet and defies the laws of physics for no known reason. A 95 ton mech like the executioner should drive like a 95 ton mech. period.

At most there should be a +/- 10% variation between a mech's agility and the baseline agility for its tonnage. More than that is unrealistic.

Edited by Khobai, 24 May 2017 - 06:37 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Khobai, on 24 May 2017 - 06:25 AM, said:

You have failed to convince me why a 95 ton executioner needs to be four times more agile than a 100 ton direwolf.

26.5t module capacity vs 50.5t are non convincing?

Edited by Karl Streiger, 24 May 2017 - 06:27 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Karl Streiger, on 24 May 2017 - 06:16 AM, said:

Two edged sword... one one hand you are sacrificing much for a bigger engine heavy / assault.

They should get some edge for this.... Look Mechs like Gargoyle or Executioner - or Falconer or Exterminator if they ever made it can hardly provide the fire power they should as heavy or assault.

the only thing you can do is to make them more mobile.

However what you can do - is to PUT a "BASE mobility" Rating - and when you drop your engine weight than you get punished. hard - full auto nerf gun

So this grant the Gargoyle ~ mobility of a 60ton Mech but if you could have a Spartan 400 rated STD it might behave like a 55-60t mech too - but dropping engine towards a 300- they should behave like a Atlas

I'd argue that engine size has zero effect on agility. The engine only supplies the power to the electronics that powers the myomar bundles. Due to how mechs are designed that the engine only really affects movement speed, but not anything related to how it handles. I'd compare it to the undercarriage of a car and the entire control mechanism for steering. Just because you drop a 429 into a Ford Focus doesn't mean it will handle cornering better due to the way the undercarriage and its components are designed. The only thing the 429 does is increase your top speed and basic off the line velocity. Everything else is handled by the undercarriage and its components. So in this case, the car undercarriage components =/= mech electronics and myomar bundles handling the agility for torso pitch, twist, and yaw.

[Karl Streiger]

James The Fox Dixon, on 24 May 2017 - 06:27 AM, said:

I'd argue that engine size has zero effect on agility. The engine only supplies the power to the electronics that powers the myomar bundles. Due to how mechs are designed that the engine only really affects movement speed, but not anything related to how it handles. I'd compare it to the undercarriage of a car and the entire control mechanism for steering. Just because you drop a 429 into a Ford Focus doesn't mean it will handle cornering better due to the way the undercarriage and its components are designed. The only thing the 429 does is increase your top speed and basic off the line velocity. Everything else is handled by the undercarriage and its components. So in this case, the car undercarriage components =/= mech electronics and myomar bundles handling the agility for torso pitch, twist, and yaw.

OK
can when you want it this way.
Can you explain why a power plant weight almost 3 times at much and only grant 33% more power (400STD vs 300 STD)
We can do the same game for the Charger as well - or any other vehicle.

Speaking of Power - when I have a 300 rated engine - this gives enough power to accelerate a Atlas towards 52.5kph.
The same 300 rated engine with the same power output should not be able to accelerate a Spider at much more than 100kph.

So there are some fault in your logic - or in mine.

Anyhow the weight is a resource and when i spend more i should get more - simple isn't it.
Look the huge engine weight had some reasons in CBT because more speed = harder to hit - but you really don't want to tell me a Atlas with 18m/s instead of 15 m/s is harder to hit

[Steve Pryde]

James The Fox Dixon, on 24 May 2017 - 05:57 AM, said:

In universe explanation is that the Marauder design has been in constant production since 2612. That's 438 years of being produced till 3050. It was designed at the height of the Star League using Star League era tech for everything outside of weapons, armor, internal structure, heat sinks, and engines. Meaning that its capacitors, myomar bundles, etc... are all more robust then the Timber Wolf.

Also, the Clans didn't have the schematics for the original Marauder and reversed engineered the few they had to make the IIC variant. As far as I know, the Clans never could make a production version of the Marauder.

Another big difference is that the Timber Wolf is an omnimech while the Marauder is a battlemech. The Omnimech is basically a frame that you bolt on various pods. It's great for altering loadouts, but sucks due to the electronics to power the drivetrain is not tailored like a battlemech version is. Those components are built into the mech and takes a complete redesign to change them out.

The way all MW games have handled it is very simplistic, except MPBT due to no customization. You get to customize everything except for the electronics and drivetrain of the mech. The design philosophy in the games was that mechs are nothing more than gun bags with just a cosmetic change to how it looks. A 35 ton mech handles exactly the same way as a 100 ton mech with no alterations to agility.The way PGI handled it is much better than what was done before and brings the fluff to the fore. In the fluff, Marauders are more nimble then the Timber Wolf and always has been.

Sorry but I didn't want a lore explanation and I think PGI wasn't thinking at all about it because they haven't knowledge about Battletech lore at all. And even if, gameplay wise it makes no sense at all. I thought PGI was bringing things into line but they haven't.

A Timber Wolf is unplayable without agility skills. The Marauder needs maybe here and there some skills but way less than a Timber Wolf. Hell, even some assaults are more agile.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Karl Streiger, on 24 May 2017 - 06:34 AM, said:

OK
can when you want it this way.
Can you explain why a power plant weight almost 3 times at much and only grant 33% more power (400STD vs 300 STD)
We can do the same game for the Charger as well - or any other vehicle.

Speaking of Power - when I have a 300 rated engine - this gives enough power to accelerate a Atlas towards 52.5kph.
The same 300 rated engine with the same power output should not be able to accelerate a Spider at much more than 100kph.

So there are some fault in your logic - or in mine.

Anyhow the weight is a resource and when i spend more i should get more - simple isn't it.
Look the huge engine weight had some reasons in CBT because more speed = harder to hit - but you really don't want to tell me a Atlas with 18m/s instead of 15 m/s is harder to hit

I already pointed out that the undercarriage of the vehicle determines its handling characteristics. That is independent of the engine size. You can put a 429 V8 into a Ford Focus (with modifications to the car), but it will never change its handling characteristics. If you want to change the handling characteristics then you need to remove the stock suspension and steering system and replace with better ones that allow for tighter turns and greater agility. The only thing that the 429 V8 does is change its top speed and off the line velocity from 0-60. That is it.

[Khobai]

Quote

26.5t module capacity vs 50.5t are non convincing?

its not convincing.

because the executioner is an energy boat it doesnt need as much tonnage. its not a ballistic boat like the direwolf.

your problem is you want the executioner to be something its not. and you want to compromise immersion and realism to try and force a square peg into a round hole.

the executioner will never be a ballistic boat. nor should it be one. nor does it need to be four times more agile than a direwolf. at most the executioner should be as agile as a baseline 85 tonner. no better than that.

although MASC could use a buff because it sucks pretty bad, especially on the spirit bear.

assault jumpjets could also stand to be unnerfed so the executioners locked jumpjets arnt going to waste as much.

mostly the executioner just needs its locked equipment to not suck.

Edited by Khobai, 24 May 2017 - 06:45 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Steve Pryde, on 24 May 2017 - 06:35 AM, said:

Sorry but I didn't want a lore explanation and I think PGI wasn't thinking at all about it because they haven't knowledge about Battletech lore at all. And even if, gameplay wise it makes no sense at all. I thought PGI was bringing things into line but they haven't.

A Timber Wolf is unplayable without agility skills. The Marauder needs maybe here and there some skills but way less than a Timber Wolf. Hell, even some assaults are more agile.

Then you shouldn't have asked for a lore based reason. Editing your original post that I answered does not hide what I quoted your original response.

I gave you the reason on why the Timber Wolf isn't as agile as the Marauder without lore based information. It's a matter of how the mech was designed and built with a specific components that determined its agility for torso twisting, pitch, and yaw.

[Karl Streiger]

James The Fox Dixon, on 24 May 2017 - 06:37 AM, said:

I already pointed out that the undercarriage of the vehicle determines its handling characteristics. That is independent of the engine size. You can put a 429 V8 into a Ford Focus (with modifications to the car), but it will never change its handling characteristics. If you want to change the handling characteristics then you need to remove the stock suspension and steering system and replace with better ones that allow for tighter turns and greater agility. The only thing that the 429 V8 does is change its top speed and off the line velocity from 0-60. That is it.

problem is that we are talking about a really abstract system - you say the engine is only the engine - I say its everything that is not cockpit, structure, gyro, armor and weapons:

so myomers, cooling pipes, radiators, energy converters, storrage banks and much much more.

So in my definition the "size and weight" of a "Engine" defines all the moving parts of a Mech.
I would also say that a 300 rated STD engine should have the same characteristics but not the top speed of a 360 rated XL engine

ok take that Marauder vs Mad Cat.

both have the same chassis - and movement apparatus weighting 19 respective 19.5 tons - but the Clan XL engine has some more light weight components so it granted more "top speed" but not mobility.

would this be ok for you?

Edited by Karl Streiger, 24 May 2017 - 06:45 AM.

[Hopeasusi]

Viktor Drake, on 24 May 2017 - 06:24 AM, said:

Your missing the point. The point isn't consistency, rather it is balance. If you look at all the acceleration numbers, the mechs that got hit with the agility nerf bat are almost universally the top performing Clan mechs. Under performing mechs generally got a boost as far as I can tell.

The biggest hits are to the Kodiak, Night Gyr, Timber Wolf, MAD IIC, Stormcrow, etc.

In a way it is a great way to balance over performing mechs because it is a stat that only effects the individual chassis or in some cases an individual variant but it does make for some very inconsistent performance in a given weight range.

Um how about atlas? King Crab? Raven? Firestarter? Panther? Black knight? Orion? all IS 70ton mechs(except hopper)? all other kodiaks other than 3? All those got hit by agility nerf, none of were top performers. Marauder and Battlemaster having better mobility than other mechs the same weight? Even thought the are the best of their size for IS and Battlemaster the best IS mech.

So no, they did not do this for balance. Or if they did it's a hot mess, just like I said before.

Edited by Hopeasusi, 24 May 2017 - 06:49 AM.

[Steve Pryde]

James The Fox Dixon, on 24 May 2017 - 06:41 AM, said:

Then you shouldn't have asked for a lore based reason.

I never asked for a lore explanation. It's a game in first place and so gameplay>lore (specially then PGI is giving a **** about lore in MWO).

[James The Fox Dixon]

Karl Streiger, on 24 May 2017 - 06:43 AM, said:

problem is that we are talking about a really abstract system - you say the engine is only the engine - I say its everything that is not cockpit, structure, gyro, armor and weapons:

so myomers, cooling pipes, radiators, energy converters, storrage banks and much much more.

So in my definition the "size and weight" of a "Engine" defines all the moving parts of a Mech.
I would also say that a 300 rated STD engine should have the same characteristics but not the top speed of a 360 rated XL engine

Except that the original TT never says that. That is the problem when it comes to translating a board game to a video game like this. The only thing that the video game developers can do is look at the fluff and determine what the handling characteristics are. According to lore, the stuff that actually alters the handling characteristics cannot be changed to better equipment ever. What the mech was designed with it is stuck with it until it is either redesigned from the ground up or scrapped. Swapping out the engines does nothing to change the handling of the mech, sorry but that's the universe for ya.

[Khobai]

a madcat should be more agile than a marauder because it weighs 10 tons less than a marauder. its also a heavy and not an assault.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Steve Pryde, on 24 May 2017 - 06:47 AM, said:

I never asked for a lore explanation. It's a game in first place and so gameplay>lore (specially then PGI is giving a **** about lore in MWO).

Wow you are testy today. Actually, it's Lore>Gameplay since you can't have gameplay without the lore as a starting point. All the mechs put into MWO are from lore sources which includes Tech Readouts for the TT game. That's where PGI got the mechs from.

Khobai, on 24 May 2017 - 06:48 AM, said:

a madcat should be more agile than a marauder because it weighs 10 tons less than a marauder. its also a heavy and not an assault.

They are the same weight class. A Marauder is 75 tons, so you are thinking of the Marauder II which is 100 tons.