Jump to content

Optimum Engine Sizes By Mech Tonnage (Spreadsheet Warrior)


21 replies to this topic

#1 One Medic Army

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 5,326 posts
  • LocationBay Area, California

Posted 01 May 2013 - 05:31 PM

Hey, so I happen to like theory crafting, and to facilitate it I've put together a set of charts and numbers for my own personal use.

I've decided to share.

What follows are the optimal engine sizes for each tonnage of chassis (assuming endosteel).
The way this works is I graphed speed vs free tonnage for all mechs and all engine sizes, then I found the places where each mech tonnage had the most free weight for a given speed range.

Or in other words, if you've got a bigger engine than those listed below, you would gain a small free tonnage advantage by going to a lighter chassis at the same speed. Similarly if you're using a smaller engine than those listed below you'd gain some free tonnage by going to a heavier chassis and keeping the same speed.

An interesting thing to note is that some chassis have more than one range, due to the engine weight progression. 20Tonners for instance are worse off than an equivalent speed 25tonner if they use a 205Std engine, but are better off with both the 200Std and 210Std.

Std Engines
20Tons: 190-200, 210-255 (note with a 255std and endo, you have no armor/weapons)
25Tons: 230-235, 255-260
30Tons: 250-270
35Tons: 260-285
40Tons: 270-295
45Tons: 275-295
50Tons: 280-300 (yes, this means hunchbacks have crap speed)
55Tons: 285-305
60Tons: 290-305
65Tons: 295-300, 310
70Tons: 300, 315, 330 (70tons is a weird place for Std engines+endo)
75Tons: 325-335
80Tons: 325-340
85Tons: 325-340
90Tons: 335-340
95Tons: 335-350
100Tons: 100-350


XL Engines
20Tons: 245-325 (note with a 325xl and endo, you have no armor/weapons)
25Tons: 265-300
30Tons: 280-310
35Tons: 295-320 (this is why non-3L Ravens suck so bad)
40Tons: 300, 315-330
45Tons: 330-350
50Tons: 335-360
55Tons: 340-360
60Tons: 345-365
65Tons: 350-370
70Tons: 350, 360-370
75Tons: 350, 360-370, 380
80Tons: 360-370
85Tons: 365-370, 380
90Tons: 380
95Tons: 380-395
100Tons: 100-395

*note* I have included lower rated engines which share a weight with higher rated engines due to MWO having engine caps. Obviously a 255XL is better than a 250XL as they both weigh the same, but in the future there may be mechs with an engine cap of 250.

If you go by how much tonnage you want to put into weapons/armor, you get the following chart of what tonnage of mech to use:

Std:
0-4: 20t
4.25: 25t
4.75: 25t
5.5-6.5: 20t
6.75-7.25: 25t
8-10: 30t
10.75-13.75: 35t
14-17.5: 40t
18.75-21.25: 45t
22.5-25.5: 50t
25.75-29.75: 55t
30.5-33.5: 60t
34.25: 65t
35: 70t
36.25-37.25: 65t
38: 70t
38.75-40.75: 75t
41: 70t
42.45.5: 80t
46.75-50.25: 85t
51-53: 90t
53.75-57.75: 95t
58.5t+: 100t

XL:
0-7: 20t
8.25-10.75: 25t
11-14.5: 30t
14.75-18.25: 35t
18.5-20: 40t
20.75-22.25: 45t
22.5: 40t
22.75-23.25: 45t
24-27.5: 50t
28.75-31.75: 55t
32.5-35.5: 60t
36.25-39.75: 65t
41-43: 70t
43.75: 75t
44.5: 70t
45.75-47.75: 75t
49.25: 75t
50.5-52.5: 80t
53.25: 85t
55.25-56.25: 85t
58: 90t
58.75-62.75: 95t
63.5+: 100t

If you want which size of chassis to choose by preferred speed (pre-tweak), use the following chart:

Std:
16.2-56.7: 100t
57.126-59.684: 95t
60.3-61.2: 90t
61.941-64.8: 85t
65.813-68.85: 80t
69.429: 70t
70.2-72.36: 75t
72.9: 70t
73.532-74.769: 65t
76.371: 70t
77.262: 65t
78.3-82.35: 60t
83.945-89.836: 55t
90.72-97.2-50t
99-106.2: 45t
109.35-119.475: 40t
120.343-131.914: 35t
135-145.8: 30t
149.04-152.28: 25t
153.9-162: 20t
165.24kph-168.48kph: 25t
170.1kph+: 20t

XL:
16.2-63.99: 100t
64.8-67.358: 95t
68.4: 90t
69.565-70.518: 85t
72.424: 85t
72.974.925: 80t
75.6: 75t
77.76-79.92: 75t
81: 70t
82.08: 75t
83.314-85.625: 70t
87.231-92.215: 65t
93.15-98.55: 60t
100.145-106.036: 55t
108.54-116.64: 50t
118.8-120.6: 45t
121.5: 40t
122.4-126: 45t
127.575-133.65: 40t
136.543-148.114: 35t
151.2-167.4: 30t
171.72-194.4: 25t
198.45+: 20t

Edited by One Medic Army, 01 May 2013 - 05:58 PM.


#2 Sephlock

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • The Ironclad
  • The Ironclad
  • 10,802 posts

Posted 01 May 2013 - 08:24 PM

Isn't it always around 250 (the point at which any further engine heat sinks are no longer true doubles)?

#3 One Medic Army

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 5,326 posts
  • LocationBay Area, California

Posted 01 May 2013 - 08:35 PM

View PostSephlock, on 01 May 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

Isn't it always around 250 (the point at which any further engine heat sinks are no longer true doubles)?

The first 10 engine heatsinks are true doubles, but only if inside the engine.

#4 Terror Teddy

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,876 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 01 May 2013 - 08:39 PM

What exactly is the point with this list?

Is there any medium mech that CAN fit those engine sizes at all?

#5 Bishop Steiner

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 20,926 posts
  • LocationPort Moseby, Lyran Commonwealth

Posted 01 May 2013 - 08:59 PM

View PostOne Medic Army, on 01 May 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

Hey, so I happen to like theory crafting, and to facilitate it I've put together a set of charts and numbers for my own personal use.

I've decided to share.

What follows are the optimal engine sizes for each tonnage of chassis (assuming endosteel).
The way this works is I graphed speed vs free tonnage for all mechs and all engine sizes, then I found the places where each mech tonnage had the most free weight for a given speed range.

Or in other words, if you've got a bigger engine than those listed below, you would gain a small free tonnage advantage by going to a lighter chassis at the same speed. Similarly if you're using a smaller engine than those listed below you'd gain some free tonnage by going to a heavier chassis and keeping the same speed.

An interesting thing to note is that some chassis have more than one range, due to the engine weight progression. 20Tonners for instance are worse off than an equivalent speed 25tonner if they use a 205Std engine, but are better off with both the 200Std and 210Std.

Std Engines
20Tons: 190-200, 210-255 (note with a 255std and endo, you have no armor/weapons)
25Tons: 230-235, 255-260
30Tons: 250-270
35Tons: 260-285
40Tons: 270-295
45Tons: 275-295
50Tons: 280-300 (yes, this means hunchbacks have crap speed)
55Tons: 285-305
60Tons: 290-305
65Tons: 295-300, 310
70Tons: 300, 315, 330 (70tons is a weird place for Std engines+endo)
75Tons: 325-335
80Tons: 325-340
85Tons: 325-340
90Tons: 335-340
95Tons: 335-350
100Tons: 100-350


XL Engines
20Tons: 245-325 (note with a 325xl and endo, you have no armor/weapons)
25Tons: 265-300
30Tons: 280-310
35Tons: 295-320 (this is why non-3L Ravens suck so bad)
40Tons: 300, 315-330
45Tons: 330-350
50Tons: 335-360
55Tons: 340-360
60Tons: 345-365
65Tons: 350-370
70Tons: 350, 360-370
75Tons: 350, 360-370, 380
80Tons: 360-370
85Tons: 365-370, 380
90Tons: 380
95Tons: 380-395
100Tons: 100-395

*note* I have included lower rated engines which share a weight with higher rated engines due to MWO having engine caps. Obviously a 255XL is better than a 250XL as they both weigh the same, but in the future there may be mechs with an engine cap of 250.

If you go by how much tonnage you want to put into weapons/armor, you get the following chart of what tonnage of mech to use:

Std:
0-4: 20t
4.25: 25t
4.75: 25t
5.5-6.5: 20t
6.75-7.25: 25t
8-10: 30t
10.75-13.75: 35t
14-17.5: 40t
18.75-21.25: 45t
22.5-25.5: 50t
25.75-29.75: 55t
30.5-33.5: 60t
34.25: 65t
35: 70t
36.25-37.25: 65t
38: 70t
38.75-40.75: 75t
41: 70t
42.45.5: 80t
46.75-50.25: 85t
51-53: 90t
53.75-57.75: 95t
58.5t+: 100t

XL:
0-7: 20t
8.25-10.75: 25t
11-14.5: 30t
14.75-18.25: 35t
18.5-20: 40t
20.75-22.25: 45t
22.5: 40t
22.75-23.25: 45t
24-27.5: 50t
28.75-31.75: 55t
32.5-35.5: 60t
36.25-39.75: 65t
41-43: 70t
43.75: 75t
44.5: 70t
45.75-47.75: 75t
49.25: 75t
50.5-52.5: 80t
53.25: 85t
55.25-56.25: 85t
58: 90t
58.75-62.75: 95t
63.5+: 100t

If you want which size of chassis to choose by preferred speed (pre-tweak), use the following chart:

Std:
16.2-56.7: 100t
57.126-59.684: 95t
60.3-61.2: 90t
61.941-64.8: 85t
65.813-68.85: 80t
69.429: 70t
70.2-72.36: 75t
72.9: 70t
73.532-74.769: 65t
76.371: 70t
77.262: 65t
78.3-82.35: 60t
83.945-89.836: 55t
90.72-97.2-50t
99-106.2: 45t
109.35-119.475: 40t
120.343-131.914: 35t
135-145.8: 30t
149.04-152.28: 25t
153.9-162: 20t
165.24kph-168.48kph: 25t
170.1kph+: 20t

XL:
16.2-63.99: 100t
64.8-67.358: 95t
68.4: 90t
69.565-70.518: 85t
72.424: 85t
72.974.925: 80t
75.6: 75t
77.76-79.92: 75t
81: 70t
82.08: 75t
83.314-85.625: 70t
87.231-92.215: 65t
93.15-98.55: 60t
100.145-106.036: 55t
108.54-116.64: 50t
118.8-120.6: 45t
121.5: 40t
122.4-126: 45t
127.575-133.65: 40t
136.543-148.114: 35t
151.2-167.4: 30t
171.72-194.4: 25t
198.45+: 20t

yes, but now you need a second set of tables comparing optimal chassis/ speed with optimal chassis / hardpoint, as the most efficient sprinter still needs the right type of guns not just tonnage.

#6 One Medic Army

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 5,326 posts
  • LocationBay Area, California

Posted 01 May 2013 - 09:08 PM

View PostBishop Steiner, on 01 May 2013 - 08:59 PM, said:

yes, but now you need a second set of tables comparing optimal chassis/ speed with optimal chassis / hardpoint, as the most efficient sprinter still needs the right type of guns not just tonnage.

The whole point of this, is to see which mech tonnage gives the best speed/payload combination, or conversely for a given mech chassis at what point you're best off going to a new chassis entirely.

Even though you can get a Treb-3C or Cent 9D going 140kph, you're better off doing it in a lighter mech because you have more space for guns. If you're going 60KPH with an AC/20 and 3 ML in a Hunchback, you'd be better off in a Cataphract.

It's a tool to see if you're better off trying to fit a given loadout on a different mech.

For instance, if I know I want to mount 30tons of PPC+heatsink+armor, I can see that in a 55tonner I'd have the best speed with an XL, or a 60tonner with a standard engine.

Edited by One Medic Army, 01 May 2013 - 09:21 PM.


#7 Terror Teddy

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,876 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 01 May 2013 - 09:35 PM

View PostOne Medic Army, on 01 May 2013 - 09:08 PM, said:


Even though you can get a Treb-3C or Cent 9D going 140kph, you're better off doing it in a lighter mech because you have more space for guns. If you're going 60KPH with an AC/20 and 3 ML in a Hunchback, you'd be better off in a Cataphract.


This is only useful as long as we dont have:

-Tonnage Drop Limit
-Some kind of battle value limit

Something we sorely need.

A 50 tonne death machine moving at 70km/h is not slow.
That's what my HBK-4G gets with a standard 200 engine and speed tweak.

#8 Bishop Steiner

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 20,926 posts
  • LocationPort Moseby, Lyran Commonwealth

Posted 02 May 2013 - 03:49 AM

View PostOne Medic Army, on 01 May 2013 - 09:08 PM, said:

The whole point of this, is to see which mech tonnage gives the best speed/payload combination, or conversely for a given mech chassis at what point you're best off going to a new chassis entirely.

Even though you can get a Treb-3C or Cent 9D going 140kph, you're better off doing it in a lighter mech because you have more space for guns. If you're going 60KPH with an AC/20 and 3 ML in a Hunchback, you'd be better off in a Cataphract.

It's a tool to see if you're better off trying to fit a given loadout on a different mech.

For instance, if I know I want to mount 30tons of PPC+heatsink+armor, I can see that in a 55tonner I'd have the best speed with an XL, or a 60tonner with a standard engine.

Oh. I'm not saying it's not useful. Just giving you an opportunity for more spreadsheets! ;) Though depending on fighting style, one might need to remember that while you might have more tonnage for weapons in a 140 kph Cicada over a CN-9D, the hard point configuration on most Cicadas is truly pathetic, and it carries far less armor. Just saying by itself, it only gives part of the picture, as armor and hard point specificity also matter. But Speed/efficiency is very useful too (thoguh I admit, I tend to pretty much worry about speed last unless I'm driving a Light)

#9 JudgeDeathCZ

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ironclad
  • The Ironclad
  • 1,730 posts

Posted 02 May 2013 - 04:01 AM

SDT
65Tons: 295-300, 310

I think this is not true.I use 250/255/260 std or xl in my LRM catapults and in my long range AC/2 or 5 Jagermechs and it is ok for me.Bigger XL is useful only if you need to close up fast (splatcat,AC/40 jager) .
And if you load up 300 std into cat or jager you have rly low amount of weight for armor/weapons/ammo.

Same thing about 350 xl on 50 toner...yeah try it on cent and then tell me how much firepower you can load up...

#10 El Bandito

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 5,688 posts
  • Location1st Regulan Hussars. Always first.

Posted 02 May 2013 - 05:03 AM

If only Stalker engine is not capped at 310. ;)

#11 Lee Ving

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 482 posts
  • LocationEast Coast, USA

Posted 02 May 2013 - 09:25 AM

You wouldn't be willing to Dropbox or Megaupload or similar these as an Excel file would you? I'd love to plug them into Google dox. Thanks for the work, regardless!

#12 Sadistic Savior

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 775 posts

Posted 02 May 2013 - 09:48 AM

The best engine I am allowed to put into my 90 ton Highlander is a 300. The game gives me no option for a 335 or 340.

#13 One Medic Army

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 5,326 posts
  • LocationBay Area, California

Posted 02 May 2013 - 10:11 AM

View PostJudgeDeathCZ, on 02 May 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

SDT
65Tons: 295-300, 310

I think this is not true.I use 250/255/260 std or xl in my LRM catapults and in my long range AC/2 or 5 Jagermechs and it is ok for me.Bigger XL is useful only if you need to close up fast (splatcat,AC/40 jager) .
And if you load up 300 std into cat or jager you have rly low amount of weight for armor/weapons/ammo.

Same thing about 350 xl on 50 toner...yeah try it on cent and then tell me how much firepower you can load up...

This is true mainly because of the engine limitations MWO has. With a 250-260std in a 'pult you're going 62.3-64.8 kph.
If there was an 85ton mech that could reach those speeds with the same hardpoints you'd gain 4.5-7 tons of payload by switching to a 330-340std in an 85tonner instead. Or in other words if a Stalker was capped around at 340 engine you could move your Catapult loadout over to it and have the same speed, more armor, more weapons, more heatsinks.

However:

View PostEl Bandito, on 02 May 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

If only Stalker engine is not capped at 310. :D



View PostSadistic Savior, on 02 May 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

The best engine I am allowed to put into my 90 ton Highlander is a 300. The game gives me no option for a 335 or 340.

Yeah, that's why this is theoretical, it does show some interesting things though, like why 35ton lights are so good currently: they're the optimal tonnage for reaching the speed cap of 140kph with an XL engine. It also shows why (low hardpoints aside) atlases are so good when you shove in a 350std.

#14 Padic

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 391 posts
  • LocationColorado

Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:17 AM

This is awesome, thanks!

#15 One Medic Army

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 5,326 posts
  • LocationBay Area, California

Posted 03 May 2013 - 12:07 PM

View PostLee Ving, on 02 May 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

You wouldn't be willing to Dropbox or Megaupload or similar these as an Excel file would you? I'd love to plug them into Google dox. Thanks for the work, regardless!

It's actually a group of 4 spreadsheets.
There's a master spreadsheet, one for XL+Endo, one for Std+Endo, and one that lists the efficient ranges.

I've zipped them (in .xls format) and uploaded them to mediafire here.

#16 Phaesphoros

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 01:51 PM

Oh look! Someone has done it again.....
Note I also didn't find the post where this has been done before I did it... great forum structure & searchability....

#17 One Medic Army

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 5,326 posts
  • LocationBay Area, California

Posted 17 May 2013 - 02:13 PM

View PostPhaesphoros, on 17 May 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

Oh look! Someone has done it again.....
Note I also didn't find the post where this has been done before I did it... great forum structure & searchability....

Well, to be fair I did this back in closed beta, my original thread got wiped when we went to open beta.

Mainly this revision was done for specifically calling out the optimal combinations of mech/engine, mech/speed, and mech/payload.

Edited by One Medic Army, 17 May 2013 - 02:14 PM.


#18 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,890 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:47 PM

Interesting. I hope I can remember this until I get home.

#19 Viktor Drake

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • The Infernal
  • The Infernal
  • 5,524 posts
  • LocationClan Wolf Invasion Force

Posted 09 July 2013 - 06:58 AM

While I think the charts are a good reference they don't take into account alot of different variables.

For example, the internal heat sink slots vs critical space of a mech. Many times now, increasing engine size past optimal to get an extra internal heat sink slot or two has allowed me a superior build just due to running out of crits otherwise.

Also I think someone mentioned that loadout, not tonnage is more important. For example, if you have a ballastic slot, perhaps getting that 15 ton Gauss Rilfe is more important than 5-10 kp/h in speed.

Still like I said, it is a good reference to at least getting a starting point on engine sizes and then build from there.

#20 One Medic Army

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 5,326 posts
  • LocationBay Area, California

Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:53 AM

View PostViktor Drake, on 09 July 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

While I think the charts are a good reference they don't take into account alot of different variables.

For example, the internal heat sink slots vs critical space of a mech. Many times now, increasing engine size past optimal to get an extra internal heat sink slot or two has allowed me a superior build just due to running out of crits otherwise.

Also I think someone mentioned that loadout, not tonnage is more important. For example, if you have a ballastic slot, perhaps getting that 15 ton Gauss Rilfe is more important than 5-10 kp/h in speed.

Still like I said, it is a good reference to at least getting a starting point on engine sizes and then build from there.

It's designed to be a guideline, and personally almost all of my mechs are under-engined, though not by much.
It's also a tonnage-based guide, rather than a crit-based guide. Obviously when you're trying to maximize crits having the largest sized standard engine is optimal.
I find that it's rarely worthwhile to exceed the recommended engine range here though. With a standard you're running out of weight with which to use those extra crits, and with an XL the same plus the number of chassis that can actually exceed their XL range is very small: Cent-9D, Treb-3C, Pretty Baby, Victor, Cicada.
I also tend to run my builds very hot, so I just don't use that many heatsinks.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users