88 replies to this topic

[Hopeasusi]

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.

[Exard3k]

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

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.

Exactly what we have right now.

[DGTLDaemon]

Exard3k, on 23 May 2017 - 08:49 AM, said:

Exactly what we have right now.

Like a 4x times difference in agility between a 95-tonner and a 100-tonner? Or an 80-tonner having twice the agility of an 85-tonner?

[Hopeasusi]

DGTLDaemon, on 23 May 2017 - 08:55 AM, said:

Like a 4x times difference in agility between a 95-tonner and a 100-tonner? Or an 80-tonner having twice the agility of an 85-tonner?

Or a 65tonner being more agile than 35 tonners.

We don't have this consistancy I am proposing, we only got a promise for one.

Ps. No offense, but Exard3k don't talk BS if you have no idea what you are talking about.

Edited by Hopeasusi, 23 May 2017 - 09:16 AM.

[Monkey Lover]

They will just nerf the few "good" mechs and make them all mech turtles. No thanks

Edited by Monkey Lover, 23 May 2017 - 09:18 AM.

[Dracol]

Hopeasusi, on 23 May 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:

We don't have this consistancy I am proposing, we only got a promise for one.
.

So, if I am understanding you correctly, all mecha of the same tonnage should have the same agility?
So a mech known in lore as being agile should not be any differant than other mechs the same tonnage?
Mechs that have poor hit boxes / limited hardpoints shouldn't be given better agility to help offset those weaknesses?

Edited by Dracol, 23 May 2017 - 09:20 AM.

[Bellum Dominum]

Dracol, on 23 May 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

So, if I am understanding you correctly, all mecha of the same tonnage should have the same agility?
So a mech known in lore as being agile should not be any differant than other mechs the same tonnage?
Mechs that have poor hit boxes / limited hardpoints shouldn't be given better agility to help offset those weaknesses?

Or an Urban Mech should be just as agile as a Spider <snark>

EDIT: OR we could really be making use of that Urban Commando title some of us have

Edited by Bellum Dominum, 23 May 2017 - 09:28 AM.

[Hopeasusi]

Dracol, on 23 May 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

So, if I am understanding you correctly, all mecha of the same tonnage should have the same agility?
So a mech known in lore as being agile should not be any differant than other mechs the same tonnage?
Mechs that have poor hit boxes / limited hardpoints shouldn't be given better agility to help offset those weaknesses?

Around the same agility, not the same. If a 30% difference, largest I though could be reasonable is the same then yes. Spider having base+15% and urban having base-15%.

Atleast for me 30% is a huge amount. The whole point is making light be lights and heavies be heavies, not like what we have now. Or can you give any reasonable reason for a linebacker or dragon to be more agile than a firestarter? A mech that was even less used than the 2.

The whole point is consistency, not making everything the same. That's why there is that 10-15% deviation from the base value per mech. Do you understand it now?

[The6thMessenger]

DGTLDaemon, on 23 May 2017 - 08:55 AM, said:

Like a 4x times difference in agility between a 95-tonner and a 100-tonner? Or an 80-tonner having twice the agility of an 85-tonner?

Lol, i just realized, my Executioner is more agile than my Timberwolf.

[KekistanWillRiseAgain]

The6thMessenger, on 23 May 2017 - 07:56 PM, said:

Lol, i just realized, my Executioner is more agile than my Timberwolf.

Shotgun of Destiny being used for "Balance" once more in action... no matter how much things change, PGI always stays the same. Terrible at their fundamental job of core game mechanics... that is eternal!!!!!!!

[Dracol]

Hopeasusi, on 23 May 2017 - 07:53 PM, said:

Around the same agility, not the same. If a 30% difference, largest I though could be reasonable is the same then yes. Spider having base+15% and urban having base-15%.

Atleast for me 30% is a huge amount. The whole point is making light be lights and heavies be heavies, not like what we have now. Or can you give any reasonable reason for a linebacker or dragon to be more agile than a firestarter? A mech that was even less used than the 2.

The whole point is consistency, not making everything the same. That's why there is that 10-15% deviation from the base value per mech. Do you understand it now?

What I understand is you have issue with large deviation from a set pattern, but only when related to agility. Also, you view the classes as distinct enties, when the only differance between a 35 ton light and a 40 ton medium is just simply 5 extra tons to build with.

Firestarter has twice has many hardpoints than the Dragon, yet you feel the Dragon shouldn't exile at agility even though it has horriable hit boxes, is known in lore as agile, has low mounts, and limited hardpoints with slot restrictions.

And what is horriable about the exceptions to the norm? Giving an arbitrary fixed maxed deviation of 30% would just be a limitation on the tools available to provide differances between the hundreds of mechs varients MWO offers.

Edit to add real world example: one wouldn't think a semi truck would be quicker than a Corvette, and yet people have built dragster semi's that do the quarter mile in 12 secs.

Edited by Dracol, 24 May 2017 - 12:14 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

The6thMessenger, on 23 May 2017 - 07:56 PM, said:

Lol, i just realized, my Executioner is more agile than my Timberwolf.

Well, in fairness, your Exe has the same loadout potential as the Timby (which is low for a 75 tonner in the first place), is 20 tons heavier and is freaking huge. It needs something.

A lot of Omnis with massive locked engines get good mobility, because they cannot do what engine desync says you should do, which is drop engine size for more firepower (since large engines are FAR less useful now they only provide speed in a straight line). The Timber is overly nerfed with regards to mobility and is now a flatly inferior mech to the Hellbringer, imo. (because massive 375 engine that is a poor build choice now)

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 24 May 2017 - 12:57 AM.

[Hopeasusi]

Dracol, on 23 May 2017 - 11:59 PM, said:

What I understand is you have issue with large deviation from a set pattern, but only when related to agility. Also, you view the classes as distinct enties, when the only differance between a 35 ton light and a 40 ton medium is just simply 5 extra tons to build with.

Firestarter has twice has many hardpoints than the Dragon, yet you feel the Dragon shouldn't exile at agility even though it has horriable hit boxes, is known in lore as agile, has low mounts, and limited hardpoints with slot restrictions.

And what is horriable about the exceptions to the norm? Giving an arbitrary fixed maxed deviation of 30% would just be a limitation on the tools available to provide differances between the hundreds of mechs varients MWO offers.

Edit to add real world example: one wouldn't think a semi truck would be quicker than a Corvette, and yet people have built dragster semi's that do the quarter mile in 12 secs.

Stop! and read my whole first post.

My point 1 was Acceleration/deceleration, what should be based on engine per tonnage. So you could make a heavy faster than a light in a strait line, just like you can in real world.

BUT you cannot make a semi truck as agile as a sports car, simply due to it's weight. A light car will always out turn a semi truck due to the massive weight difference. This is due to inertia, a mass set in motion want's to keep that motion. So more mass = harder to chance direction.

Same should apply to mechs, unless they bend the laws of physics. Heavy mech need far more force to chance direction than a light mech. So a light mech should turn better by nature. You can always offset this a bit with building the mech right, but only up to a certain point.

About giving mech classes different base values for accel/decel and not by every 5 ton was simply for ease of making. Ofcourse it can be per every ton level just like agility(turning,twist). Apart from that accel/decel should be about engine per tonnage. Where as agility should from tonnage+ small deviation for different mechs.

Ps. If firestarter is so good, how about panther that has less hardpoints than dragon. Also both of these lights are even worse than dragon. Balance should be made with other things than agility that makes no sense at all. Plus the whole reason for engine decouple was to even out turning and twist speeds between same size mechs.

Edited by Hopeasusi, 24 May 2017 - 05:22 AM.

[ForceUser]

Limiting or removing tools to help balance the game is counter productive. The devs need more ways to balance mechs that isnt straight up dps increase/decrease, not fewer ways.

90% agility bonuses is not something new that came with engine desync, it's been around for a while and is a good tool to help improve badly performing mechs and reign in overperforming mechs as well as differentiate mechs in more ways. Reducing the size of these agility differences only serve to homogenize mechs and reduce diversity.

[Steve Pryde]

My problem is why is a Marauder more agile than a Timber Wolf? Why are they not equal? First I thought it was a good idea of decoupling the agility from engine size (so mechs with smaller engines are not suffering that much) but PGI failed again like always...

Edited by Steve Pryde, 24 May 2017 - 05:44 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Steve Pryde, on 24 May 2017 - 05:43 AM, said:

My problem is why is a Marauder more agile than a Timber Wolf? Why are they not equal? First I thought it was a good idea of decoupling the agility from engine size (so mechs with smaller engines are not suffering that much) but PGI failed again like always...

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.

[Dracol]

Hopeasusi, on 24 May 2017 - 05:21 AM, said:

BUT you cannot make a semi truck as agile as a sports car, simply due to it's weight. A light car will always out turn a semi truck due to the massive weight difference. This is due to inertia, a mass set in motion want's to keep that motion. So more mass = harder to chance direction.
.

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.

[Hopeasusi]

ForceUser, on 24 May 2017 - 05:33 AM, said:

Limiting or removing tools to help balance the game is counter productive. The devs need more ways to balance mechs that isnt straight up dps increase/decrease, not fewer ways.

90% agility bonuses is not something new that came with engine desync, it's been around for a while and is a good tool to help improve badly performing mechs and reign in overperforming mechs as well as differentiate mechs in more ways. Reducing the size of these agility differences only serve to homogenize mechs and reduce diversity.

This would be all well and good, if it did this balancing. Now it's just too random. As in some points it was balancing stuff, but the same time all 100 ton mech got almost the same agility. Are king crabs as good as kodiak-3? as they have same agility.

Is 30% difference is homogenizing for you, really? A 30% dps difference is huge, but you say its nothing in agility.
I'm not about homogenizing to the max, but making each mech feel like they should per their weight. So lights nimble and assaults much less so.

Again read the post properly, then think about it and only then comment. So that we can get a proper conversation. Not just random ideas from left to right, that don't bring anything concrete to the table.
No matter what, engine decouple they gave us is a hot mess, making some mechs useless and others silly good.

Ps. Dragon 1C is part of the IS meta with 3 LPL and biggest standard engine you can put in it. it has so much defensive quirks that it is almost a 80 ton mech in terms of armor/structure.

[Karl Streiger]

Hopeasusi, on 24 May 2017 - 06:08 AM, said:

Ps. Dragon 1C is part of the IS meta

a Dragon? Meta? 3 LPL STD Fusion???? must be a 300 rated engine....

Edited by Karl Streiger, 24 May 2017 - 06:13 AM.

[Khobai]

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.

Edited by Khobai, 24 May 2017 - 06:13 AM.