20 replies to this topic

[Kynesis]

I'm going to raise this as an issue that _I personally_ find extremely unsatisfactory and very nearly game-breaking.
I'm well aware that quite a few people are totally fine with it (and will almost certainly answer "just invest in the Agility tree GG", I'm glad you're happy.

In principle I like the idea of the engine desync but this implementation has driven me to gut and shelve my assaults along with a number of other mechs.

I get that big stompy robots seem bigger and stompier if they lumber around but for my taste, the lumber drastically outweighs the story benefits.

I had planned to invest quite a lot of time & effort into MWO but as things stand, that just isn't going to happen.

I do somewhat wonder just how much support this new style of ... cumbersome gameplay has, from the point of view of perhaps judging whether or not it might change in the near term.

[Karl Streiger]

As a owner of almost all Gargoyles (minus the hero) I was absolutely against the desync - as I was opposed to the skill tree.

However mobility is a balancing tool - good Mechs like the TimberWolf (look at the stats, compare it with the Gargoyle) had superior speed, weapon options and even good twist rates.

Now we have individual mobility values instead of something global - a scalpel instead of a scythe.

I for my part ignore the mobility tree in most cases.

[PhoenixFire55]

Engine desync makes no sense. Period. Its just another crutch added in order to compensate for the initial design fails and inablility/unwillingless to admit siad fails and/or give an effort to actually fix the core issues.

This game was supposed to be a mech simulator, or at least a "BattleTech Game" like the logo just above claims. But nearly from day one of beta when it became apparent that perfect instant pinpoint convergence is here to stay you could tell that this game will never be more than a generic first person shooter with robots. There are of course other issues, but regardless desync is a clueless attempt with minimal effort to correct that or rather to try at least something and tell people you've tryed when you actually didn't.

So, if you are looking for a general first person shooter, there are better ones out there. And if you are looking for a proper BT game you are once again in a wrong place.

[Snowbluff]

Karl Streiger, on 02 June 2017 - 04:16 AM, said:

Now we have individual mobility values instead of something global - a scalpel instead of a scythe.

Okay, this is a lie.

Before- PGI could arbitrarily used quirks to change the mobility of a mech.

After- PGI arbitrarily chosen the mobility of each mech.

Engine Desyn is broken. Since the mobility tree is by percentages, and so is MASC, you can't fix your mobility on nerfed mechs if you wanted to.

[Karl Streiger]

Snowbluff, on 02 June 2017 - 04:21 AM, said:

Okay, this is a lie.

Before- PGI could arbitrarily used quirks to change the mobility of a mech.

After- PGI arbitrarily chosen the mobility of each mech.

Engine Desyn is broken. Since the mobility tree is by percentages, and so is MASC, you can't fix your mobility on nerfed mechs if you wanted to.

Well you are right - partly - before you could modify the "initial" mobility by changing the engine if you could.
Now you can't anymore

At least its not the desync thats broken alone, the whole engine system is based on TT and so its automatic broken when it comes to FPS (simple because we don't have hit modificators or physical combat)

[MrMadguy]

That's due to Clans, having bigger engines almost for free. IS vs Clan balance - is major reason for this change.

[Snowbluff]

Karl Streiger, on 02 June 2017 - 04:25 AM, said:

Well you are right - partly - before you could modify the "initial" mobility by changing the engine if you could.
Now you can't anymore

At least its not the desync thats broken alone, the whole engine system is based on TT and so its automatic broken when it comes to FPS (simple because we don't have hit modificators or physical combat)

Well we don't need hit modifiers because we have what those abstract already: flight time, spread, enemy movement, laser durations...

MrMadguy, on 02 June 2017 - 04:25 AM, said:

That's due to Clans, having bigger engines almost for free. IS vs Clan balance - is major reason for this change.

IS mechs are sturdier than ever. My Battlemaster has 68 front armor and 69 structure on each side torso, for 137 HP. Compare to my Mad IIC with 173 HP on the CT. I will say I prefer it this way, and I hope PGI doesn't screw it up.

[Karl Streiger]

Snowbluff, on 02 June 2017 - 05:46 AM, said:

Well we don't need hit modifiers because we have what those abstract already: flight time, spread, enemy movement, laser durations...

I didn't said we need them only that the weight of the engine is that large because a Charger with decent armor and weapons in the 3025 setting would have been havoc. Same for the 100t class - but consider their size and the difference in speed - there is no big difference between shooting a 100t with a 300 or with a 400 rating - so speed based on the engine rating is a bad metric to beginn with. Better to link speed, heat dissipation etc. non linear to the engine weight

[Sjorpha]

I think it's good in principle.

Some mechs just need to be tuned to have a bit better better or a bit worse agility, for example Atlases should twist better since they are supposed to be good brawlers and so on. But the new system allows for individual tweaks like that so it's much better suited to fix those mechs.

Being able to more freely lower engine ratings to allow more interesting builds is definitely great.

[Monkey Lover]

Biggest issue I see is the percentage increase on most of the quirks.

High base mechs are turning into super mechs at the same time low base mechs don't even see the difference.

They really need to have set increases on a lot of these quirks. We were sold a system to make mechs our way but it's not the case.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 02 June 2017 - 07:07 AM.

[kf envy]

MrMadguy, on 02 June 2017 - 04:25 AM, said:

That's due to Clans, having bigger engines almost for free. IS vs Clan balance - is major reason for this change.

there not free to have to pay for them and cant change them like the IS

[Revis Volek]

MrMadguy, on 02 June 2017 - 04:25 AM, said:

That's due to Clans, having bigger engines almost for free. IS vs Clan balance - is major reason for this change.

You can put whatever size engine you want in your IS, you could even go BIGGER then clam mechs.


and by that logic its free as well because it just cost cbills, like everything else in the game (including clam mechs and their LOCKED engines)

[FireStoat]

kf envy, on 02 June 2017 - 07:33 AM, said:

there not free to have to pay for them and cant change them like the IS

If PGI gave me the option to permanently lock the pods on an Omnimech to its stock configuration and then allow me to strip equipment out of it and change it just like a Battlemech, I'd do it in a heartbeat for most of my mechs. And most certainly the Timberwolf. A 375 XL with its current mobility is garbage. A 350 or 325 would make it worth using again, pretty much how the Orion IIC is worth taking out of the bay now.

[bbihah]

Spotted the clueless clams

[xe N on]

Engine de-sync was a good change. Heavies and Assaults were too mobile. Certain assaults are still very mobile. My Victor is even much better than before. It twists even better than some of my mediums. Still score good in my Timberwolf.

So. I see no problem?

Was the twist and turn rate engine related in MW4? I don't know anymore ...

Edited by xe N on, 02 June 2017 - 08:40 AM.

[kapusta11]

It might have been ok if it was just that, an engine desync, instead, not only it was yet another global mobility nerf, PGI tried to balance clan top tier mechs by nerfing the chassis itself instead of addressing the real reason why they perform so well - better engines, better endo/ferro upgrades, better heatsinks, better ER PPCs, lighter Gauss etc.

Edited by kapusta11, 02 June 2017 - 10:20 AM.

[Revis Volek]

kapusta11, on 02 June 2017 - 08:57 AM, said:

It might have been ok if it was just that, an engine desync, instead, not only it was yet another global mobility nerf, PGI tries to balance clan top tier mechs by nerfing the chassis itself instead of addressing the real reason why they perform so well - better engines, better endo/ferro upgrades, better heatsinks, better ER PPCs, lighter Gauss etc.

xe N on, on 02 June 2017 - 08:37 AM, said:

Engine de-sync was a good change. Heavies and Assaults were too mobile. Certain assaults are still very mobile. My Victor is even much better than before. It twists even better than some of my mediums. Still score good in my Timberwolf.

So. I see no problem?

Was the twist and turn rate engine related in MW4? I don't know anymore ...

But it was not just an ENGINE DESYNCH


They nerfed many mechs after this fact like many heavies which I agree were a little too ballerina like but what they did to 100 tonners is just a crime. Also my Jenny IIC i cant even twist it out of SRM's anymore. Even if i see them coming its so sluggish for me anymore that i get crit CT because HSR said "no silly jenner, you arent fast enough to mitigate dmg like bigger mechs" Speed is fine, jjs fine, fire power fine, cooling fine. But that sluggish torso turn rate has turned it back into the Starship Voyager.

and someone mentioned the VTR, its has lots of quirks because it sucks and yea its mobile but it also typically take a pretty large engine and if its not that mobile it dies in a few shots due to IS XL needed on many builds.

Edited by Revis Volek, 02 June 2017 - 09:09 AM.

[Coolant]

i like de-sync but certain mechs base stats need to be lowered and certain mechs need to be raised.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Coolant, on 02 June 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

i like de-sync but certain mechs base stats need to be lowered and certain mechs need to be raised.

And certain mechs (ahem....the Marauder IIC) need to be left alone.

But yeah your right. Overall, the Desync is actually a good balancing tool that is tuned correctly will probably lead to a definite improvement to the game. The 100 tonner took way to much of a hit because they are valued less than half of all other Assault mechs, including 95 tonners. There just shouldn't be that much of a different because of 5 tons. I would like to see the 100 tonners acceleration rates improved from their current 6.18 to around 10.00 and some of the lights improved a bit more as well. There are also a few other mechs mixed here and there that could use some adjustment as well.

Also they should extend the balancing to independently tuned torso twist speed and arcs.

One key thing they should also do is balance from the perspective of what is fun and what is not. If any change that is being considered takes the fun factor out of the mech, they should shelve that idea and look for another way to balance. Making all mechs equally garbage, which is kind of traditionally PGI's way, is not a good way to balance. Equally good is the direction they need to go.

[Katastrophy Kid]

MrMadguy, on 02 June 2017 - 04:25 AM, said:

That's due to Clans, having bigger engines almost for free. IS vs Clan balance - is major reason for this change.

There were drawbacks and advantages for clan mechs with large engines before the patch, sure bigger engine for speed and torso twist, but No Choice for your engine. You're stuck with what the mech has. I personally hate engine desync and I'm an IS pilot. I never even thought it was a problem until PGI pulled the rug out from underneath me. Now I put the same engine in every KGC-000 own, because, what's the point? I have three of them and now they're all basically the same mech. In my favorite version I used to run a STD 360 with only 2 ac20s because the big engine gave me enough speed and torso agility to compensate for the reduced firepower. It was a fun build, not meta, but good enough that I could make it work. On another I had a STD 325 and 2 SRM4+A to go with my ac20s and sacrificed agility for firepower. Now it just isn't the same, Mobility skill tree Be Damned.

Edited by Katastrophe Kid, 02 June 2017 - 04:57 PM.