845 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Nightbird, on 17 June 2018 - 09:44 AM, said:

Non-pinpoint convergence:

The non-pinpoint I'm imagining is one where if you chain fire weapons one at a time, you'll hit the same point, but if you fire two, the targeting computer will place the end points 0.5 (or X.X) meters apart, so that you will not see destructive interference between weapon systems. For example, for two gauss shots to hit the same point means that at some distance from the target, the gauss rounds are colliding in mid-air. Lasers also have a width and overlapping would cause interference. The more weapons you alpha, because each weapon will be aimed at a slightly different point, the spread gets larger. It should not be random though, whatever the most space efficient way to arrange the points are should be used in a predictable manner. A weapon on the left shouldn't be hitting the right side of the spread, and vice versa. X.X spacing can also vary by weapon, an AC20 needs more space than AC2 etc... therefore it can be CPU taxing on both client and server. The end result is that big alphas are punished with spread.

As much as I love this concept... HSR makes it very difficult to do, if not impossible. We one time had delayed non-pinpoint convergence in this game. It was great. But the power of the Lag Shield was even more powerful. So thus we got HSR.

However, I do wonder if we could do a "targeting CPU" concept, where each weapon would "take up" so much targeting CPU when fired. Fire over the CPU and accuracy is lost. Want more CPU for your targeting? Get a targeting computer installed. The very weight of it would counter overly high damage. (Then we can lose the current advantages of the targeting computer, which didn't make much sense to me.)

However, once again, I don't think it could work.

However balancing could fall down to "how much CPU does your individual mech have", and "how much CPU does shooting a weapon take when it shoots" could be adjusted. A poorer running mech could have better CPUs to offset their performance. Another mech might have better CPU for specific weapons, such as for LRMs, meaning it could shoot larger alphas of that weapon system without having issues/accuracy.

Though, I do presume that homing missiles would have to be reworked, maybe having worse tracking (accuracy) if too many missiles are fired at once? Hard to really say...



Needless to say, I'd love to have convergence being a balancing factor. But I do also believe that the term "skill" with aiming would come up in complaints if it did...

[I D K]

I was trying to read this thread but we're at 34 pages and counting and I have things to do. I see convergence has come up. I think some form of this is the way to balance things. Fixed wpns cannot converge unless fired in chain so torso can move. They are fixed. Arms can converge, but only if mech has all actuators (or its ability to converge is limited). Even then if wpns aren't next to each other on the arm they are still not going to hit the exact same spot. Thus high alpha will be spread. A four ac Kodiak probably won't hit a commando w all four wpns unless he chainfires. An 8 laser hellbringer will have to chain fire instead of alpha and hide, unless he's ok w spread. The dual hvy guass annihilator w five mpls will unlikely get all wpns to hit one target unless he chain fired or target is very very big, . Etc, etc, etc. This point has bothered me a long time even without balance issues. It just makes sense.

Edited by Hofacker, 17 June 2018 - 07:23 PM.

[Noguchi-san]

Hofacker, on 17 June 2018 - 07:15 PM, said:

I was trying to read this thread but we're at 34 pages and counting and I have things to do. I see convergence has come up. I think some form of this is the way to balance things. Fixed wpns cannot converge unless fired in chain so torso can move. They are fixed. Arms can converge, but only if mech has all actuators (or its ability to converge is limited). Even then if wpns aren't next to each other on the arm they are still not going to hit the exact same spot. Thus high alpha will be spread. A four ac Kodiak probably won't hit a commando w all four wpns unless he chainfires. An 8 laser hellbringer will have to chain fire instead of alpha and hide, unless he's ok w spread. The dual hvy guass annihilator w five mpls will unlikely get all wpns to hit one target unless he chain fired or target is very very big, . Etc, etc, etc. This point has bothered me a long time even without balance issues. It just makes sense.

And where should be the fun in this?

[KitK]

At 34 pages this whole thing is TLDR, But I will throw in my opinion at high risk of repeating what's been said.

If alpha damage is the problem, why not remove alpha as an option. Or make it true alpha ( ie everything goes, rocket launchers, unlocked missiles, machine guns, lasers, rifles - everything. With all of its heat effects. And give the alpha a cooldown like the strikes. Enforced chain fire groups is a problem for machine gun boats, but there is such a thing in-universe as the machine gun array, that could be expanded as needed and advanced to flamers.

Something that could affect player choice with alpha output is adding more heat affects. Presently we can push max with no penalty and then override, taking some internal damage. But what would happen if heat beyond base heat sinks resulted in Battletech style effects: slowing down, aiming difficulties, and ammo explosions. That could translate into speed reductions, drop-off of selected skill effects, slower or "squishy" reticle movement, intermittent or "screen-shake" style reticle movement, slowed refire (cooldown) rates on ammo based weapons, slowed lock times, and slowed information gathering. If mech performance took a hard enough hit from heat, alpha becomes more of a last resort option, rather than the status quo, because reduced mech performance would become too risky. I can see how this sort of change could turn a lot of players off. But it does seem to be an untried option.

We've had the weapon stats tinkered with for years, what could this hurt on the test server. Maybe both true alpha/chain and heat effects in some combination. I tack that thought on because this problems seems so multifaceted that I can't imagine any one solution in isolation will produce the "fix". It will probably take some combination of desync, weapon stat adjustments, and outside-the-box thinking gameplay adjustments.

[ClaymoreReIIik]

As mentioned before this thread became TLDR, so at risk of repeating other peoples ideas as my own:

I think the main issue with the high alphas is not when they come from close ranged weapons, because (ghost) heat penalty does reduce the effectivity enough and you can very seldomly hide in close quarters when your heat capped.

While I do believe that the reduced heat cap on clan mechs was the closest we ever had of IS vs Clan balance, let's focus a bit on the high alphas at ranges of 400-700 meters because this is where it gets really problematic. You won't be able to bridge the gap fast enough even if your enemy is overheated and even if you do, against focus fire from opponents you lose people and then your advantage is not big enough up close to make it a sure win.

Putting Large® Lasers in the same Heat penalty group as gauss will do little to balance things, because with lasers you can track your target (firing the laser) while the gauss charges, then shoot the gauss slightly after lasers have stopped firing and heat penalty will never be triggered, effectively not making the "alpha" any worse or pilots having to possess any more skill (,unless you consider charging the gauss already as the "punishable offense").

My idea is to use an existing mechanic (torso movement quirks/skills) and apply it to certain weapon systems upon fitting them. Gauss rifles, AC5s etc. had minimum ranges in the tabletop for a reason. Minimum range means from a high flying perspective that these weapons were worse in close quarters combat, then they were from a bit further out.

My proposal here is to apply varying degrees of slower torso movement and reduced torso movement angle to AC5s, AC2s and Gauss rifles. Gauss rifle being a heavy weapon would provide a malus of 8% reduced torso movement speed and yaw reduction of 10 degrees (each). If you fit 2 of those your looking at a penalty of 16% slower torso speed and 20degrees less total firing arc. This way you could even get rid of the charge mechanic, if you liked. This can be compensated on "stock dual gaussers" by rolling a compensation into base mech stats. This massively reduces a mechs viability up close while having little impact on the long range game.

ER(/Heavy) PPCs would in turn receive 5 degrees less firing arc and 2% reduction in torso movement, since their damage is reduced up close and heat generation is so high.

AC2s would reduce torso movement by 3% each and firing arc by 3 degrees (each). This would making stacking them over 3 painfull up close, without diminishing their role or DPS at range.

I would slap medium range weapons that proved problematic (Heavy large laser, ER Medium laser) with slight penalties on laser duration. Each ER Medium Laser increases burn duration of all laser weapons by 2%. Each Heavy Large Laser by 5%. That way your typical 4 ER Medium Laser and 2 Heavy Large laser build looks at a 18% burn duration penalty, basically enforcing long facetime and taking away the "alpha advantage" against DPS builds. Reducing the cooldown to keep DPS numbers in line seems fair here, to keep it a change of playstyle rather then a straight up nerf.

Last but not least Machine guns need to have a similar penalty applied in form of a spread penalty (even if it means redoing the entire machine gun code). Each machine gun must increase spread of bullets by 3%. I am fine with machine guns being boated on smaller mechs, but there is no need to provide them with surgical precision. They create no heat and have plenty of ammo per used ton. They will be a lot less viable in light vs light combat if they spread heavily. The power against bigger mechs will be least impacted by this.

All of the above penalties should not apply to single fitted weapons (if you fit a 2nd weapon of any of the mentioned types, penalties start to apply).

With my solution you have the "give & take" decision already moved to the mechlab and long range mechs are more vulnerable in close range combat, leading to a more "rock&paper&scissors" gameplay decision. Rushing LRM boats is a viable tactic, make rushing the AC2 boat a viable choice too. This will obviously improve the combat role of smaller mechs as well.

Edited by ClaymoreReIIik, 18 June 2018 - 05:51 AM.

[Noguchi-san]

ClaymoreReIIik, on 17 June 2018 - 11:36 PM, said:

...

With my solution you have the "give & take" decision already moved to the mechlab and long range mechs are more vulnerable in close range combat, leading to a more "rock&paper&scissors" gameplay decision. Rushing LRM boats is a viable tactic, make rushing the AC2 boat a viable choice too. This will obviously improve the combat role of smaller mechs as well.

rock&paper&scissors - sounds nice, but clans only got "paper" - so wtf?

[Imperius]

Reno Blade, on 17 June 2018 - 12:24 PM, said:

Lol, Engine Desync is not the problem alone that some people think would be solved if we revert it.

Elite players still twist and shoot, but anything below 70t just doesnt have the armor to soak up enough dmg, even with twisting.

If you would be as agile as a medium to twist your arm in the line of fire, you could soak up even more, but mediums don't have that much armor and heavies/assaults are slower after the desync, sure.
The issue is the sheer amount of dmg, as that amplifies the place where it hits you the most.

To have any decent use from twisting, you would need to spread more damage towards your arm or side torso than CT (if that is where your attacker is trying to shoot you!).
Let's imagine a very fast twisting mech and a very high alpha with long beam.
The beam duration vs twist speed decides how much you will soak on wich component (arm, side, CT).
If you are faster twisting than the first 25% of the alpha beam duration, you might soak most (~75%) of the alpha with your arm and side torso.
Let's say 25% goes to CT, 25% to LT and 50% to LArm.

So far so good, you could say.
Faster twist speed gives you more chance to shield with the arms, you would say, right?
If you do 100 dmg with your alpha, you will still get 25dmg to CT, 25dmg to LT and 50dmg to LA with twisting.
An average Medium mech without quirks have about 40-50 armor on a side and about 50-60 on CT.
That leaves you with 2 Alphas that you can eat before melting internals even with twisting!
This would be even worse with front loaded Gauss on top of laser vom!

Please tell me you don't actually like this kind of weak feeling piloting a medium mech vs a laser vomit heavy/assault!

I prefere the chaotic, but long lasting action of mediums such as Hunchies and Cents fighting with their low dmg loadouts against each other, such as the current Event is creating.

Your opinion. I lived longer before the great engine debacle. Don’t matter MWO is dead to me until things happen that won’t happen so dead.

[Tesunie]

Imperius, on 18 June 2018 - 07:27 AM, said:

Your opinion. I lived longer before the great engine debacle. Don’t matter MWO is dead to me until things happen that won’t happen so dead.

My question to you... Have you ever actually tried to do a full match of stock mech only against stock mech only (all 3025 era tech, single heat sinks, no endo or FF, level 1 tech only)? You would be surprised how different it is compared to the open game, and it actually does (to a lot of people who actually give it a try) tend to feel like a better gaming experience.


As for the engine desync, it was done for a reason. Some of us like it (even if it could use some more tweaking). Yes, it is our opinion, and as much as you are entitled to yours, so are we to ours. You may want to see it back into the game, but we much rather it out of the game.

I will mention, when it was first done in the game, TTK didn't seem to be affected. Sure, mechs moved a little slower, but it wasn't such a drastic difference that people died in seconds. As time has gone on, alphas seem to have gone up... as a note, it's typically higher alphas produced on newer chassis. For example, the Marauder IIC, the Mad Cat MK II, Annihilator, Fafnir to name a few of the new chassis that seem to have rather higher alphas. (We've also seen a lot of armor quirks changed over to structure quirks...)

[Imperius]

Tesunie, on 18 June 2018 - 07:52 AM, said:

My question to you... Have you ever actually tried to do a full match of stock mech only against stock mech only (all 3025 era tech, single heat sinks, no endo or FF, level 1 tech only)? You would be surprised how different it is compared to the open game, and it actually does (to a lot of people who actually give it a try) tend to feel like a better gaming experience.


As for the engine desync, it was done for a reason. Some of us like it (even if it could use some more tweaking). Yes, it is our opinion, and as much as you are entitled to yours, so are we to ours. You may want to see it back into the game, but we much rather it out of the game.

I will mention, when it was first done in the game, TTK didn't seem to be affected. Sure, mechs moved a little slower, but it wasn't such a drastic difference that people died in seconds. As time has gone on, alphas seem to have gone up... as a note, it's typically higher alphas produced on newer chassis. For example, the Marauder IIC, the Mad Cat MK II, Annihilator, Fafnir to name a few of the new chassis that seem to have rather higher alphas. (We've also seen a lot of armor quirks changed over to structure quirks...)

Maybe... just maybe... you’d relize that since taking a bigger faster engine is 100% worthless now. Of course the only min max option is to load up more weapons.

No, I’ve never played and or care to play stock anything.

As already stated I quit playing a while ago. Nothing will change I doubt I’ll be back.

[Tesunie]

Imperius, on 18 June 2018 - 09:24 AM, said:

Maybe... just maybe... you’d relize that since taking a bigger faster engine is 100% worthless now. Of course the only min max option is to load up more weapons.

No, I’ve never played and or care to play stock anything.

As already stated I quit playing a while ago. Nothing will change I doubt I’ll be back.

Larger engines mean faster land speeds. So larger engines do have a purpose. Want to poke and scoot? You need a larger engine to do so.

I mean, ever wonder why the Linebacker is considered a dangerous mech? It's got a large engine and moves fast, so it can reposition quickly and/or get on top of a target.

Currently, large engine designs still have a place in the game. With engine resynced, then small engines would be "worthless" again... So what you basically are trying to say is you want large engines only to be worth something again, and who cares about slower engines or mechs that have lower engine caps?


Seriously, may want to give it a try. If you can find a stock mech only group and play in lobbies, it can be a real blast. But, it isn't everyone's thing, so I can understand that.


If you've quit playing, how do you know what is currently relevant? Is the only change that "forced" you out the engine desync? What else has changed that you don't like?

[MechaBattler]

Just nerf something already. The forum is getting quiet again. lol.

The event has really made me want to see Clan alpha come down. Yeah yeah twisting, git gud, blah blah. The game is more fun without all that ridiculous alpha spaming all over the place. Even if you twist, that damage is still going somewhere and it's a lot of damage. It's like MRM spam. That damage isn't focused, but it is still a lot and it's going somewhere.

[Hal Greaves]

MechaBattler, on 18 June 2018 - 10:05 AM, said:

twisting, git gud, blah blah.

[Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain]

Tesunie, on 17 June 2018 - 06:06 PM, said:

Vs the average Clan alpha and IS heavy side torso armor?
Let me help you with that:
Cataphract 1X side torso 86 total armor (average probably 80 front) with 39 structure. This is with survival skills.
Catapult BB side torso 60 total (54 front) with 36 structure. No survival.
Dragon 1N side torso 84 total (78 front?) with 36 structure. Full survival.
Grasshopper 5J side torso 80 total (74 front?) with 39 structure. Full survival.
Jagermech 6-S side torso 77 (71 front) with 63 structure. Full survival.
Riflemen 3N side torso 56 (50 front) with 28 structure. No survival.

So, there are some random IS heavy mechs that I own. Compared to Clan mechs side torso health (seen as you made this about side torso health).
Ebon Jaguar B side torso 69 (63 front?) and 40 structure. Full survival.
Hell Bringer P side torso 70 (64 front?) and 40 structure. Full survival.
Linebacker D side torso 82 (76 front?) and 40 structure. Full survival.
Sunspider VG side torso 68 (62 front?) and 33 structure. Partial survival.

Now, excluding my LRM builds (as we know it will show higher), here are there alpha damage.
Cataphract 1X 37
Dragon 1N 20
Grasshopper 5J 38
Jeagermech 6-S 14 (It's more DPS damage)
Riflemen 3N 34
VS
Ebon Jaguar 52
Hell Bringer 64
Linebacker 57

So... full damage to side torso each (as you seemed to describe)...
Hellbringer vs Cataphract
Phract takes 64 damage alpha to it's side, stripping it's armor down to 22 left.
The Phract returns fire, dealing 37 damage in return, taking the Hellbringer down to 33.
SECOND VOLLEY! They each hid and then came back out to shoot again after their weapons got off cooldown (mid ranged combat).
The Phract reacts first, dealing 37 damage again, taking away the Hellbringers armor and reducing it's torso structure to 36 (excluding randomness of crits).
The Hellbringer, still with a side torso, returns fire. It's punishing blow of 64 damage goes off again, slagging the rest of the Phracts armor off, reducing it to -3 structure... as in it now no longer HAS a side torso.

Want to go at this again? I basically just did maxed health buffed heavy vs my heaviest hitting clan. The Clan mech still walked away with a side torso still on it, meanwhile, the IS mech is nursing it's wounds and missing half it's mech. 70 ton IS mech vs a 65 ton Clan mech.

We COULD play this out with two on two, each shooting at the same target and location... That extra damage produced by clan mechs quickly adds up. Meaning less focus fire goes a lot farther with their higher alphas.

Also, observe my (dirct fire) build's alpha levels between the two factions. Every clan heavy I posted has an alpha over 50. Every IS mech seems to average just under 40.
(For the record, this is with "spread sheat warrior". I'm not including random factors of accuracy, twisting, speed, "pressing" (keeping a target engaged until it is forced to overheat or run), weapon recycle times (I'm presuming they each are doing the poke and shoot trading so often seen in matches), etc.)

Not sure where the IS under 40 Alpha thing is coming from. I can't think of a single IS heavy laser vomit mech I have with an alpha under 42. Most Have 45-60.

A non skill tree hellbringerP has 60/30 Armor structure. A Grasshopper 5J has 70/30. For silly purposes of side torsos and math, lets just call HBR 90HP and GHR 5J(hands down the worst GHR and one you almost never see because of low mounts and low hardpoints) 100HP. GHR HJ 45 point Alpha with 3LPL and 3 ML(also gets -10% cooldown and -10% heat gen). HBR 64 point Alpha. Within GHR optimal range, GHR takes the side torso of the HBR first every time assuming both pilots are idiots, stand face to face, and don't torso twist. The GHR can fire two times dealing 90 damage before the HBR can fire 2 times. HBR loses side torso and half it weaponry. HBR fires 1 once full alpha and then again half alpha, 64+32= 96, GHR still has side torso an can fire a third time without overheating, where as the HBR is at heat threshold.

Obviously the above scenario isn't realistic, in actuality neither mech would be fully front loaded on armor and each would probably have some points in survival. Given that, both would lose their torso in this exchange. HBR are faster, have a higher alpha, and have better range. GHR are more durable and have better cool down rates, burn times, and heat efficiency. These mechs play completely differently, but if played correctly by relatively equally skilled pilots, it's going to be a very even match between the two.

But if it were me, I'd take a GHR 5H or 5P. More and better hard points and better quirks than the 5J. That is, if you're trying to trade with a HBR. If your only choice is the cataphract, I'd run an AC 20 with 5MPLs and a standard 290 and hope my team was set up to brawl. That is a 50 point alpha and can half a HBR in 2 shots.

The point is that there are counters on both sides, but it takes teamwork and positioning to be able to take advantage of those counters.

Edited by Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain, 18 June 2018 - 04:16 PM.

[lazytopaz]

If I could do anything about balancing I'd make few of the variants of the mechs more unique and focused around specific playstyle/strenghts. Just like CN9-D was built around 1x LBx10 . There are so many mechs and only difference between them is ammount and type of weaponry you can put on them. Nothing else. So in general one could buy only one mech from specific family and don't bother playing/buying any other variant atm.

[H Seldon]

Just make mechs move slower (every aspect of the mech) the hotter they get. Want to do that laser alpha? You won't be able to get away that fast to cool off. Risk/reward. I think it would force more balanced builds. Though I tend to run more balance builds anyway and don't like the whole alpha, run and hide playstyle.

[Hal Greaves]

So when will we get an answer on this?

[Tesunie]

Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain, on 18 June 2018 - 04:12 PM, said:

Not sure where the IS under 40 Alpha thing is coming from. I can't think of a single IS heavy laser vomit mech I have with an alpha under 42. Most Have 45-60.

You missed the point...

What about IS mechs that have few/less to no health quirks? Are we now petitioning for all IS mechs to get X+ health boosts to all components? Now also, all IS mechs start to have to go for the high alpha race. A DPS mech already has issues most of the time, especially with faster land speeds (and here is why I'm against resynced engines to twist speeds), of "poke warrior online". So, we once again try to invalidate options by going with "bring this mech/build/alpha level or go home".

My 5J has two LLs and four ERMLs and moves 87 KPH (XL engine) with max JJs (I like mobile mechs with JJs). That's a 38 firepower at mid range with a cooling of 1.3. (Edit: I might also want to mention this has dual AMS as well for team support.)
My 5H has three LLs and 4 ERMLs and moves 69 74 KPH with max JJs. That is a 47 alpha at mid range, but only with a cooling of 1.1. So it runs very HOT. (Edit: Realized this mech was somehow under tonned, so I upgraded it's LFE up a few more notches.)
Meanwhile, my Hellbringer has two HLLs and four ERMLs with ECM and moves 81 KPH. That's 64 alpha at mid range, but it's cooling is 1.4.

So the Hellbringer is faster or almost the same speed, has ECM (but lacks JJs) and has better cooling on top of that. And it's also more durable over my 5J do to Clan XL.

So, your Grasshopper may have higher alpha, but what does it's cooling rate look like? I don't exactly like overheating after two alphas, and the Hellbringer can get away with it because it cools so quickly even when it does get hot. So, what trade offs are you taking to get that 60 alpha?

My heavy mech with the highest alpha for IS has 45.2 firepower on a Cataract, with the average of my stable (without LRMs) being closer to upper 30s lower 40s. (I shall admit now I don't own very many heavy mechs, mostly mediums.) Vs my Clan heavy mechs (I own more of them) which range from 36 to 64, with the average looking like lower 50s as a solid number.

On that note, the Clan heaviers still average higher alpah, with higher speeds, with better cooling...


But this is the issue with spreadsheet warrior. I might present a case, you bring up a counter case. I counter with an example, then you counter with another example... And we look at one piece of it because it's a complex issue and hard to look at all of it at once. Also, people tend to cherry pick the data, presenting "this one" that works, and leave out pieces that don't fit with their data.


Edit: This excludes other mechs, such as the Cataphract. My 1X has three LLs and two ERMLs for strong mid range power. It has cooling of 1.4 (Same as Hellbringer), moves 69 KPH (slower than Hellbringer), and has an alpha of 37 (lower than the Hellbringer). What about the Riflemen now? Or the Thunderbolt? How many individual mechs are we going to go through? How many "Well, I wouldn't take that mech/variant for X reasons, and instead take this (superior) choice and do this".

Edited by Tesunie, 19 June 2018 - 08:55 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

Tesunie, on 18 June 2018 - 09:38 AM, said:

Larger engines mean faster land speeds. So larger engines do have a purpose. Want to poke and scoot? You need a larger engine to do so.

I mean, ever wonder why the Linebacker is considered a dangerous mech? It's got a large engine and moves fast, so it can reposition quickly and/or get on top of a target.

Currently, large engine designs still have a place in the game. With engine resynced, then small engines would be "worthless" again... So what you basically are trying to say is you want large engines only to be worth something again, and who cares about slower engines or mechs that have lower engine caps?


Seriously, may want to give it a try. If you can find a stock mech only group and play in lobbies, it can be a real blast. But, it isn't everyone's thing, so I can understand that.


If you've quit playing, how do you know what is currently relevant? Is the only change that "forced" you out the engine desync? What else has changed that you don't like?

Wrong. The Linebacker has better agility stats than 35t mechs. This is crazy. Especially since 35t lights really need a buff in the agility department. Speed doesn't mean so much when agility is lacking

[Tesunie]

Bush Hopper, on 19 June 2018 - 11:29 AM, said:

Wrong. The Linebacker has better agility stats than 35t mechs. This is crazy. Especially since 35t lights really need a buff in the agility department. Speed doesn't mean so much when agility is lacking

So then... seems more like we should be asking for agility values to be re-looked at and balanced better. Not resyncing engines to twist speed (which still isn't the full scope of agility, such as deccel and acceleration, twist speeds, turn rate, etc). Syncing engine to twist speeds just adds another penalty to mechs with smaller engines.

Sounds like your issue isn't with twist speeds connected to engines, but overall turning and accel and deccel of mechs.

[Stinger554]

Tesunie, on 19 June 2018 - 11:55 AM, said:

Sounds like your issue isn't with twist speeds connected to engines, but overall turning and accel and deccel of mechs.

Shhh you're not supposed to tell them that. Let them have their circle jerk about engine desync.