54 replies to this topic

[Anjian]

Vlad Ward, on 04 March 2021 - 03:16 PM, said:

Mechs are slow. Really slow. We have huge, beautiful maps in which maybe only 5-10% of the playable area sees combat.

Mechs are slow. Really slow. Dodging is not a thing unless you're a 20 tonner going 135+ (and even that is largely because the models are so small).

What if Mechs moved faster? What if there was a good reason to use half or quarter throttle? What if players could actually choose non-central positions and respond to the positioning of the opfor? What if objectives were actually playable for anyone not in a Locust?

It almost sounds fun.

You can also shrink the maps and allow players to choose from specific points where to spawn or respawn.

Edited by Anjian, 04 March 2021 - 09:56 PM.

[Theodore]

Anjian, on 04 March 2021 - 09:22 PM, said:

You can still play Hawken on the PS4.

Oh nice! I might pick up a used ps4 then. Not I wonder if my Corsair mouse will work on ps4, probably not huh?

[Aidan Crenshaw]

The6thMessenger, on 04 March 2021 - 09:47 PM, said:

Samial, on 04 March 2021 - 09:32 PM, said:

Reading a lot of the Sarna websites the mechs default speeds are slightly off.. Most IS Assaults are 54kph.. not 48.6 kph. Outside of that they all seem pretty close bar the mad cat.. its like 86.4 kph.

Commando is 97kph
Locust is 129kph

I think it's because PGI had to account for Speed Tweak.

This a thing because rounding. In TT, groundspeed is defined by hex fields per round. With one round being 10 seconds and one hexfield is 30m. The max speed is defined as 1.5 times base speed. Now, there are mechs that move at 3, 5, 7 and so on hexes/round base speed. So their max speed, being 50% higher than their base speed, would be 4.5, 7.5, 10.5 hexes/round and so forth. There is, however, no half hex movement in TT you either go 7 or 8 hexes, but not 7.5. Thus, max speeds on these odd figures are rounded up to 3/5, 5/8, 7/11 and so on.
Now, if we try to translate hex/round into km/h we have to apply the factor 10.8. Now, km/h figures used in TT are based on hex speed and therefore a 5/8 movement unit is listed as 10.8x8=86.4km/h max speed. Which makes it faster than a 6/9 movement unit in direct ratio. If it weren't for the rounding up to to hexes, the 5/8 unit by the rules would move at 5/7.5 which translates to 10.8x7.5=81km/h. Since MWO is not limited to hexes, it doesn't have to rely on the inflated numbers due to rounding and therefore depicts the correct and fair numbers by the original construction rules.

That being said, I'm all for a bit more agility on the mechs of the lower mobility spectrum. But a flat increase with the proposed numbers is just wrong.

Edited by Aidan Crenshaw, 04 March 2021 - 11:02 PM.

[Void Angel]

This conversation reminds me, indirectly, of conversations I've had with Assault pilots who invariably blame the team for "leaving them behind." Sometimes, yeah, the team leaves you in the dust, but see, I used to be an avid Atlas driver. I was stubborn enough to regularly drop my Atlas throughout the entire poptart meta phase. So I know for a fact that nine times out of ten, that big, slow 'mech chose sub-optimal routes to get where they needed to go (it was especially fun to have these talks when I was piloting an Atlas... in any case, I digress.) My point here is that generally pilots of slow 'mechs don't pilot those 'mechs efficiently around the battlefield - and since it is legitimately discouraging to get Julius Caesar'd in the back of the group, I suspect they often just switch to faster 'mechs and never learn.

So I agree with Aidan that what we need isn't an across-the board increase; Mechwarrior 'Mechs are supposed to feel a bit slow, like a vehicle, not a powered armor suit - in other words, not like a Valkyrie, or even a Battleoid. The 'mechs that should go fast, do; the ones that are slow generally should be.

But I think it's worth looking at an agility increase, at least in terms of moving over rough terrain. Last time I took my Highlander out for a drive, it couldn't equip jump jets. A rocket-assisted hill-climbing system? Sure! But not jump jets. Trying to use jump jets on a Highlander is less like rising into the sky on wings of fire and more like being winched up a hill by a tow truck. Already-slow 'mechs are slowed further by steep terrain, and allowing them more freedom to move - with or without Jump Jets - would make learning to maneuver your Dire Wolf around the map a bit less punishing, if nothing else.

All that being said, I suspect part of PGI's thinking about turn rates and the like are about balancing Light survivability against larger 'mechs. Which is a laudable goal, since Light 'mechs have been suffering since, well... since they fixed the netcode to implement HSR. Whether they've gone about this the right way is more of a salt mine than I really feel the need to swing a pick at, but I'm pretty sure that's what they're trying to do.

(PS: Alpine Peaks is a testament to the bloody-minded stubbornness of MWO players. A poorly balanced map with inadequate counterplay for short-ranged 'mechs. The map was regularly voted down in the rotation - until PGI announced they were reworking it (a project which eventually became Polar Highlands.) No sooner had the announcement been made than suddenly everyone loved that stupid map...)

[YueFei]

Void Angel, on 04 March 2021 - 11:36 PM, said:

All that being said, I suspect part of PGI's thinking about turn rates and the like are about balancing Light survivability against larger 'mechs. Which is a laudable goal, since Light 'mechs have been suffering since, well... since they fixed the netcode to implement HSR. Whether they've gone about this the right way is more of a salt mine than I really feel the need to swing a pick at, but I'm pretty sure that's what they're trying to do.

Yeah, the issue with that approach is that even if Assault agility were so bad that a perfectly-piloted Light would always defeat a perfectly-piloted Assault in a close-range engagement... the game isn't 1v1. It's 12v12. Even if Assault agility is tuned so that the Light will always win, that doesn't actually make Lights a proper counter to Assaults, because Assault mechs can just form a combat box and peel Lights off of each other. It's a team game, after all.

Hence why PGI's premise of Assault > Heavy > Medium > Light > Assault is a flawed one.

It'd be far more interesting to tune with an eye for balancing across different roles and weight classes, instead of just trying to balance by weight class alone. For example:

• Within a weight class, balance so that brawlers generally have the advantage over long range mechs.
  The idea is that the brawlers have enough armor to tank some hits on the way in, and similar speeds so that they can close the gap.
  
• However, brawlers would be at a disadvantage against long range mechs that are a lower weight class.
  The idea is that the long range mech in a lower weight class has greater speed and can exploit that to zone the heavier weight class brawler, attacking it from out of effective range of the brawler's weapons.

So you could have a Long Range Assault that's countered by a Brawling Assault, which in turn is countered by a Long Range Medium, but that Long Range Medium would be at a disadvantage against a Brawling Light (and the Long Range Medium would of course also lose trades against a Long Range Assault). That Brawling Light would get smashed by a Brawling Heavy, but that Brawling Heavy would in turn get smashed by a Brawling Assault. Round and round we go. You get the idea.



With that kind of balancing dynamic in mind, there's no longer any need to nerf the crap out of Assault mechs' agility out of some misguided attempt to make Lights counter Assaults. PGI could then try to balance along roles + weight-class, and restore the agility of our mechs, as suggested by the Gulag. That would make the Mechs handle more responsively, stopping/starting quicker, turning/twisting faster, and thus spreading damage better, even if they don't go any faster at top speed in a straight line.

Edited by YueFei, 05 March 2021 - 12:06 AM.

[Dozer6]

Samial, on 04 March 2021 - 04:59 PM, said:

Because this is battletech. Western mech games are slow lumbering giants that burn each other down.. If you want fast speedy mechs i suggest Japanese or Asian mech games. They are the standard speedy fare.. Things like Gundam and Macross etc.

I personally prefer the older 80's western mechs.. Slow feels accurate to Battletech.

For once i agree with you lol...

[Vlad Ward]

FupDup, on 04 March 2021 - 04:15 PM, said:

Giving higher bonuses to big mechs seems like it could really mess up class balance, given that the big bois already tend to be the higher performers statistically speaking.

And also even the smallest bonus is too huge in terms of how much it would change gameplay (biggest slowest assaults going 90+ kph). Something like the old speed tweak value of just 10% would be plenty fine (some mechs get more or less depending on how good they are).

I think it'd be more fun if speed was radically overhauled. In ye olden thymes, every single Mech outside of brand new purchases had un-nerfed Speed Tweak. It was built into the skill tree. We still clumped together in the same central areas because of the Unspoken Agreement.

I'd be fine doubling speed across the board, though Lights would definitely need a rescale if they're going to be moving at 300kph.

[Vlad Ward]

AncientRaig, on 04 March 2021 - 07:49 PM, said:

I feel the problem is less "mechs are slow" and more "mechs aren't agile". PGI's been on a crusade against high turn, acceleration, and deceleration rates for years now. If you could actually make use of the fact that you are a MECH to stop and start moving more quickly than a tracked vehicle, you might be able to dodge fire and move about the map more. But when it takes 8 seconds for a mech to go from 0 to its top speed, or from its top speed to a stop, you can't dodge anything.

Agility can help dodging and poking, but doesn't help map traversal. 90-95% of the usable space on a map is completely unusable in practice because it takes too long to relocate. It feels like MWO was scaled as a "Tank Game" but balanced around Tabletop rules which make no sense here. Weapons have extremely short effective ranges. It's not like you can hole up in a position and ambush enemies with your main guns.

[Brauer]

YueFei, on 05 March 2021 - 12:04 AM, said:

Yeah, the issue with that approach is that even if Assault agility were so bad that a perfectly-piloted Light would always defeat a perfectly-piloted Assault in a close-range engagement... the game isn't 1v1. It's 12v12. Even if Assault agility is tuned so that the Light will always win, that doesn't actually make Lights a proper counter to Assaults, because Assault mechs can just form a combat box and peel Lights off of each other. It's a team game, after all.

Hence why PGI's premise of Assault > Heavy > Medium > Light > Assault is a flawed one.

It'd be far more interesting to tune with an eye for balancing across different roles and weight classes, instead of just trying to balance by weight class alone. For example:

• Within a weight class, balance so that brawlers generally have the advantage over long range mechs.
  The idea is that the brawlers have enough armor to tank some hits on the way in, and similar speeds so that they can close the gap.
  
• However, brawlers would be at a disadvantage against long range mechs that are a lower weight class.
  The idea is that the long range mech in a lower weight class has greater speed and can exploit that to zone the heavier weight class brawler, attacking it from out of effective range of the brawler's weapons.

So you could have a Long Range Assault that's countered by a Brawling Assault, which in turn is countered by a Long Range Medium, but that Long Range Medium would be at a disadvantage against a Brawling Light (and the Long Range Medium would of course also lose trades against a Long Range Assault). That Brawling Light would get smashed by a Brawling Heavy, but that Brawling Heavy would in turn get smashed by a Brawling Assault. Round and round we go. You get the idea.



With that kind of balancing dynamic in mind, there's no longer any need to nerf the crap out of Assault mechs' agility out of some misguided attempt to make Lights counter Assaults. PGI could then try to balance along roles + weight-class, and restore the agility of our mechs, as suggested by the Gulag. That would make the Mechs handle more responsively, stopping/starting quicker, turning/twisting faster, and thus spreading damage better, even if they don't go any faster at top speed in a straight line.

Brawlers already wreck longer range mechs at least a weight class heavier if they're able to get in, and with proper pathing you can get brawlers into their optimal most of the time. Longer range lighter and faster mechs also already can often effectively kite slower brawlers out and pick them apart. I think you need to learn more about the game before saying these dynamics don't exist.

Edited by Brauer, 05 March 2021 - 06:56 AM.

[Xiphias]

I disagree, slow movement is a big part of what makes MWO unique as a shooter. It puts the emphasis on positioning over aiming.

There was a better class distinction (and hence more role warfare) before clan mechs were introduced in large part due to how slow mechs were. Maps were smaller on average (reducing time to combat), but because heavier mechs were so slow you still got positional play with light mechs. Clans and light engines have continuously pushed the average speed up making it easier for the bigger mechs to respond to faster movers, eating into their role. Outside of the occasional conquest match, it's rare to see the speed of light mechs be needed, mediums and heavies can fill many of those roles.

Increasing movement speed doesn't increase map utilization. People will get into combat faster, but you'll still see most fights taking place in the usual spots. There is no incentive to leave the main combat area/death ball. For greater map usage you need to give players a reason to go to other locations through either objectives (e.g. conquest) or through some sort of tactical advantage (e.g. cover, positioning, or resources).

An example of this currently in the game is lava on Terra Therma. People avoid lava because of the extreme heat, but will occasionally move through it for quick shortcuts. What if you added the inverse? Areas that significantly increased the cooling rate of a mech standing inside of them? You would encourage hot mech builds to move to those areas, while cool running builds wouldn't care as much. Your map design has just influenced how different players move around.

The problem with map usage is not that areas aren't accessible, but that there is no reason/motivation to go to those areas. Even ignoring the technical limitations, I think increasing speed is the wrong solution to the problem and would make the game less unique, not better.

As to alternatives (ignoring the fact that it will never happen) one though that could address some of your issues (long time to combat, hard to flank and respond) is through the control of strategic transportation hubs. Imagine on a large map like polar that the conquest points have something like railways connecting them, if you control two adjacent hubs (or maybe one controlled hub to any adjacent) you can rapidly transit between then by riding a train (or dropship).

This allows mechs to quickly move to different areas to respond to threats without changing the core piloting mechanics, and also gives faster mechs a role to play (capture forward areas to allow friendlies to move up more quickly). Set trains on some sort of interval timer like respawns in FP to avoid being spammed/abused and you have a pretty interesting mechanic. Couple that with objectives that encourage mechs to move around the map and you address many of your problems while also having a stronger roll for fast movers (can you capture a distant node before the next train window closes?).

[Saved By The Bell]

Mechs should be tougher, not faster. Armour should be doubled... Do you remember strong guys from Mech 2? Mech 3 was so so. When I tried Mech 4, I surprised how fast you can die.

[Gagis]

Armour has been doubled from what it is in Battletech (and probably other Mechwarrior games too),

but when you ALLOW 12 other active human players to shoot at you, there is no amount of extra armour that will save you. Leave the hero vs the world of powerless NPCs kind of attitude into single player games, and you'll notice how hard mechs can be to kill.

[YueFei]

Brauer, on 05 March 2021 - 06:55 AM, said:

Brawlers already wreck longer range mechs at least a weight class heavier if they're able to get in, and with proper pathing you can get brawlers into their optimal most of the time. Longer range lighter and faster mechs also already can often effectively kite slower brawlers out and pick them apart. I think you need to learn more about the game before saying these dynamics don't exist.

Uh, I know this. I never said this dynamic doesn't exist. I play a Medium brawler almost 100% of the time, and indeed the kind of target I look for is a long-ranged Assault or Heavy. I'm explicitly calling out the existing balancing dynamic as a reason why PGI should not be trying to tune by nerfing the crap out of Assault agility, and yet PGI still seems to be stuck in the mentality of balancing by a [Assault > Heavy > Medium > Light > Assault] "circle of life".

[Curccu]

Vlad Ward, on 04 March 2021 - 04:10 PM, said:

My headcanon is Assaults moving at 200-250% current speed, Heavies at 200%, Mediums at 175%, and Lights at 150%. Obviously spitballing. I feel like it'd make maps usable and, bonus round, make dodging and aiming an actual thing. Honestly, Lights are only difficult to hit right now because they're so small. They'd probably need to be scaled up with a speed increase, but it's okay as long as it's fun.

So (without speedtweak):
Locust 230,85 kph
Vulcan 223,125 kph
Quickdraw-5K 194,4 kph
Mr.Gargles 202,5 kph

Those are some of the fastest if not fastest mechs in their weight classes all of those can wield 5-16 energy hardpoints with max engine...
What's the point of playing lighter ones?

PS. how do you think potatoes would hit anything, they are hard time already hitting anything faster than 70kph.

edit. This slowish gameplay is what makes MWO different, in a good way IMO, If I wanna play quake or UT I can play those.
Also this old engine is rubbish and lights are going as fast as they can without breaking hitcode totally (or that is was PGI says).

Edited by Curccu, 05 March 2021 - 09:51 AM.

[Void Angel]

Xiphias, on 05 March 2021 - 07:29 AM, said:

Set trains on some sort of interval timer like respawns in FP to avoid being spammed/abused and you have a pretty interesting mechanic. Couple that with objectives that encourage mechs to move around the map and you address many of your problems while also having a stronger roll for fast movers (can you capture a distant node before the next train window closes?).

I like that idea; simplest is to have actual trains running at set intervals, so long as the switching stations are capped. Gives Lights a better role to play, too - particularly if the switching stations aren't co-located with the transport lines and hubs. Battletech - and thus Mechwarrior - is at its core a game of attrition. Having something that gives good rewards and has an impact on matches greater than the difference in tonnage is the challenge in balancing smaller 'mechs, Lights in particular.

[East Indy]

Teams are slow because they're overwhelmingly heavies and assaults. They don't need any more advantages.

The answer is more lights and mediums, but to do that in a practical way would enable opted-in players to queue with two or more 'Mechs selected as possible matchmaker picks, extra rewards given to lower-pop weight classes — and PGI hasn't designed it.

[Vlad Ward]

Xiphias, on 05 March 2021 - 07:29 AM, said:

I disagree, slow movement is a big part of what makes MWO unique as a shooter. It puts the emphasis on positioning over aiming.

There was a better class distinction (and hence more role warfare) before clan mechs were introduced in large part due to how slow mechs were. Maps were smaller on average (reducing time to combat), but because heavier mechs were so slow you still got positional play with light mechs. Clans and light engines have continuously pushed the average speed up making it easier for the bigger mechs to respond to faster movers, eating into their role. Outside of the occasional conquest match, it's rare to see the speed of light mechs be needed, mediums and heavies can fill many of those roles.

Increasing movement speed doesn't increase map utilization. People will get into combat faster, but you'll still see most fights taking place in the usual spots. There is no incentive to leave the main combat area/death ball. For greater map usage you need to give players a reason to go to other locations through either objectives (e.g. conquest) or through some sort of tactical advantage (e.g. cover, positioning, or resources).

An example of this currently in the game is lava on Terra Therma. People avoid lava because of the extreme heat, but will occasionally move through it for quick shortcuts. What if you added the inverse? Areas that significantly increased the cooling rate of a mech standing inside of them? You would encourage hot mech builds to move to those areas, while cool running builds wouldn't care as much. Your map design has just influenced how different players move around.

The problem with map usage is not that areas aren't accessible, but that there is no reason/motivation to go to those areas. Even ignoring the technical limitations, I think increasing speed is the wrong solution to the problem and would make the game less unique, not better.

Fair point. Weapon range would have to increase significantly as well. There's no point moving to new areas if you can't hit the opfor with your AC/20.

[East Indy]

Addendum: heavies and assaults and Vapor Eagles that may as well be heavies.

[Vlad Ward]

Curccu, on 05 March 2021 - 09:49 AM, said:

PS. how do you think potatoes would hit anything, they are hard time already hitting anything faster than 70kph.

edit. This slowish gameplay is what makes MWO different, in a good way IMO, If I wanna play quake or UT I can play those.
Also this old engine is rubbish and lights are going as fast as they can without breaking hitcode totally (or that is was PGI says).

Potatoes miss things in every game. It's honestly way too easy to hit things in MWO. On top of that we have LRMs, ATMs, SSRMs, LBX Autocannons, SRMs, and MRMs which are all either lock-on, conic, or cylindrical spread.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 05 March 2021 - 10:34 AM.

[PocketYoda]

Anjian, on 04 March 2021 - 09:47 PM, said:

There is a game called Gundam Battle Operations 2 you can play on the PS4 right now. Its team vs. team combat using Gundams and other mechs from the Universal Century, not Gundams from the alternative universes. Its not a slow game, but its not a fast game either, and it certainly isn't FPS-fast.

Never even heard of it. Plus i have no consoles sorry.

The6thMessenger, on 04 March 2021 - 09:47 PM, said:

I think it's because PGI had to account for Speed Tweak.

I'm not sure does full speed tweak actually get you to 54kph.. i thought 48.6 with full tweak is 52 something.

Vlad Ward, on 05 March 2021 - 10:33 AM, said:

Potatoes miss things in every game. It's honestly way too easy to hit things in MWO. On top of that we have LRMs, ATMs, SSRMs, LBX Autocannons, SRMs, and MRMs which are all either lock-on, conic, or cylindrical spread.

Its not always potatoes either, 350 ping time that's almost half second to hit stuff with a weapon.. Judging every weapon especially PPCs a full second to the target across a map is harder than it looks.. and not to be hit almost a second hit time isn't as easy as players like to believe.

Not to mention the faster things go the more lag shielded they become at high speeds..

Edit
My mistake i read it as ping goes both ways, that's how i was explained it by someone a while back.. Fixed it.

Edited by Samial, 07 March 2021 - 07:41 PM.