145 replies to this topic

[Protection]

One of the things that has been bothering me -- and I don't have a solution for it at this time -- is the use of large engine sizes on almost every possible mech and variant.

Now, I realize someone will chime in with a great PUG game in a 200 STD Hunchback or 250 STD Atlas, but generally speaking -- and especially in competitive play (such as Run Hot or Die and most organized 8 man drops), Engine sizes on every single mech are much larger than stock.

Light mechs are more or less required to have a top speed close to or over 140 kph, anything slower is almost an instant kill for an opportunistic heavy or assault.

Medium mechs usually push past 80 kph (over 130kph for Cicadas), and generally all Hunchbacks and Centurions, especially in competitive play, have 250 STD or 260 STD engines. Slower ones are a liability being so easy to target and gun down.

Heavy mechs are one of the only weight classes where being slower than normal is an option, but most players still take the risk of a 300XL on their Catapult. Only occasionally do we see a slow STD Cataphract, the AC/20 Cat, or a STD Gausscat/A1 (still able to get close to a 250 STD in). Dragons aren't seen often, but Dragons moving less than 90 kph are a usually serious liability.

And even Assaults, almost all run large standard engines. Atlases generally go for a 325 or 350 STD, Stalkers cram in 300 STDs or 310 STDs, and even Awesome 9Ms usually settle around a 350 STD.

Almost none of the common (serious) cookie-cutter builds use smaller-than-stock engines, and almost all of them use something larger. Part of this reason is critical slot/heatsink efficiency -- more engine heatsink room means you can put in Endo Steel, meaning more tonnage for a bigger engine. Part of this is that speed is important for survival, slow lights and slow mediums make easy targets for good snipers, and cannot adequately reposition, scout, or defend the base.

So my question is this: do we simply want slower designs to be overlooked, and expect almost everyone and every regular (competitive) design to run large engines, or should slower mechs have a place as well? Is there any way we can balance out slower mechs to make them more competitive or have more impact without being a huge liability, or is speed so important that it is basically a requirement on most mechs?

I don't have the answer, I'm just fishing for opinions and thoughts on this...

[Phrenologer]

Speed = Life.

Slow mechs can't, Get where they need to be, Turn faster than a pregnant whale,Cap points, Support faster mechs (unless they snipe/LRM), Get to the fight before its over.

And lets face it no matter how big you are the faster you move the harder you are to hit.

Slow mechs die alone.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Chiming in. I don't have much of a problem with 220 in my hunchback. I don't have much of an issue running 113kph (or slower) in my 2x or 4x raven.
It's just a slightly different play style I find and I'm used to running slower. And as a result i got some more heat sinks and weapons so I'm dishing out a lot more DPS. It's a little more demanding on situational awareness, using the map, understanding where your team mates are and everything, but that's all necessary when you're running 120+kph too. I find that when I place myself within my team, and survey the area first and be patient instead of barreling in, it's not too hard to dish out 300.. 400... even 500+ damage.
As long as you know where you, and how long it'll take to get to where you want to be then speed isn't really of an issue. But that's just me. *shrug* I've always been running slow.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 11 February 2013 - 07:13 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

I don't think smaller engines need an assist...you can run them if you can find a way to make the speed loss less of a liability by adding more weapons conceivably. Realistically though, speed matters and it should. I don't personally believe the game loses anything by having a separation between faster engines and slower ones...it's not that difficult to earn the c-bills and with RnR gone it's not like there's any disincentive for swapping the same engine across multiple chassis to save money....you do it with modules, why not with engines?

[Protection]

MoonUnitBeta, on 11 February 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

Chiming in. I don't have much of a problem with 220 in my hunchback. I don't have much of an issue running 113kph (or slower) in my 2x or 4x raven.
It's just a slightly different play style I find and I'm used to running slower. And as a result i got some more heat sinks and weapons so I'm dishing out a lot more DPS. It's a little more demanding on situational awareness, using the map, understanding where your team mates are and everything, but that's all necessary when you're running 120+kph too. I find that when I place myself within my team, and survey the area first and be patient instead of barreling in, it's not too hard to dish out 300.. 400... even 500+ damage.
As long as you know where you, and how long it'll take to get to where you want to be then speed isn't really of an issue. But that's just me. *shrug* I've always been running slow.

A 113kph Raven would be eaten alive in a heartbeat in Run Hot or Die league play.

[Patrick Wolf]

Protection, on 11 February 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

A 113kph Raven would be eaten alive in a heartbeat in Run Hot or Die league play.

I love slow lights.... Free kill for my gausscat

[Inappropriate1191]

I have one build where I run a smaller engine in. An atlas-RS, with a 285 engine. This saves tonnage, to allow me to run 4 large lasers and an AC/20. I only lose a very small amount of speed (2.5 KPH) and thanks to speed tweak, I more than make up for the loss. The only problem with this is that I lose an extra heatsink. It's okay, though. The sheer power it puts out is worth it.

[Davers]

I really don't see a way to make slower mechs more viable in this system. Too much is based on bigger engine=better in many ways (torso twist, speed, heat sinks).

[Targetloc]

Make detection range and target fade based on engine size? It would give some incentive to drive a medium mech without benefiting the ultra fast lights too much.


It's hard to come up with a good reason to take a smaller engine. Even in the board game speed was a huge advantage.

[Homeless Bill]

There's nothing like going 90kph in an Awesome. As a personal preference, I almost always value mobility over firepower. I'd rather be fast and squishy with an XL than slow and durable with a standard engine.

I could plod around slowly in my sniper Stalker, knowing that if anyone engages me in a brawl, I'll have an extra ten seconds of life because I have a standard engine... but what good does that do me? I'd take an extra 15kph so I can re-position easily / turn faster.

Speed isn't always a necessity, but most of the time, it's pretty hard to beat.

[Wolf Clearwater]

A huge part of this has to do with torso twist speed. Larger engine = faster & more responsive torso twist. Those who can aim faster, kill faster.

[Vapor Trail]

When you factor in the fact that a smaller engine also slows down your twist and turn rates, you really start having problems.

Just to try and see, I wound up attempting a Stalker build with six Large Pulse, max heat dissipation, max armor, and a standard (sub-300 for sure, might have been sub-250) engine.

As you would expect the thing walked... no, waddled... like molasses runs in winter. Turn and twist were so bad I had a heck of a time keeping a legged Jenner under the crosshairs, and the firepower increase wasn't much to write home about either (two salvo overheat). Even with a 250 engine, max heat dissipation would have been massively inadequate.

Though an assault with a 3/5 walk/run is so common as to be unremarkable in the TT (85 tonner with 3/5 requires a 255 rated engine) and 2/3 isn't really unheard of either, in MWO it suffers so much from the twist and turn speed reductions that it's probably not viable for that reason alone.

In the current environment, it's too slow to cross open terrain without ECM escorts, and acts as an anchor for them letting snipers and/or TAG equipped or supported LRM boats have a field day. If it stays in cover, it can't engage. If it attempts a defensive stance, it gets ignored until it's the last left, one of the enemy mechs takes a 60 pt LPL salvo, and then the Stalker build melts under massed fire.

Basically what you'd expect.

But a mech that sacrificed speed for firepower in TT usually wasn't quite as pointless.

[ICEFANG13]

I've been thinking of this, I'm surprised that the engine heatsinks aren't always standard and actual doubles aren't double (ie, engines are always single, outside ones are single when single, and truly double, .2HPS, are really doubles). This seems like it would fix a lot of problems, and make double heatsinks not always an upgrade (as they are, they are almost always), and makes smaller engines better.

It would also be interesting if double heatsinks in the engine (as they are), actually gave you to your max, so if you had a STD 100 engine, you would have 8/10 instead of 4/10, this would be another interesting way to 'fix' it.

[Lukoi Banacek]

WHY does every possible Mech combination need to be balanced?

[ICEFANG13]

Why not?

[Deamhan]

Why? Because then you get everyone with the "best build" because anything else isn't viable.

[Asmudius Heng]

The issue:

Larger engines provie way more benefit for thier tonnage than a smaller engine provides from extra tonnage. It is simply more efficient on less measurable things than tonnage. For example:

Large engines provide:

• Greater agility via better torso twist and turning speeds and acceleration/deceleration.
  
• More engine heat sinks which is extremely better when double heat sinks are involved
  
• And Better overall velocity of course

The engine thing becomes more broken because engine heatsinks in the engine are 2x regular heat sinks but the space saving is massive for bigger mechs so they up engine. Smaller mechs dont cae as much about that but speed is life to them so they take engines for speed. Heavier mechs desperatly need better agility to tuirn to face faster mechs also.

The limited amount of tonnage you gte back from each drop in engine size erodes your agility, heat management and speed and only allows you to increase your firepower marginally by comparison.

In my opinion the worst thing is that engines affect agility forcign an arms race for bigger engines not so much for speed, but the ability to manouvre to fight. Small engine mechs are not just slow - they are SLUGGISH which means DEAD in a brawl which is where it all usually ends up.

The easiest solution to encourage smaller engines is to make agility MUCH less affected by engine size. Like HUGELY less affected. You could also make additional engine heat sinks be only 1.4 like other double heat sinks so it becomes a space saving measure not also a heat management issue.

Large engines are simply too efficient at too many things and become an essential part of a build instead of a tactical option.

No one says how great thier slow mech is because they are the king of firepower and know how to use thier limited speed to make sure the firepower remains effective. nstead they swap out the engine and go fora larger one because they got outmanouvred, and out DPSed by other mechs who had better speed, agility and heat management.

You bring up a very valid point OP and the devs should consider ramping up the agility of all mechs a little big and reducing the impact of how engine size affects them to make speed its primary focus not massivly better agility.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Deamhan, on 11 February 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

Why? Because then you get everyone with the "best build" because anything else isn't viable.

That's not necessarily true however. Some people trade durability for XL-speed, others choose not too. Some choose heavier weapons builds rather than be the fastest or best armored version of a chassis. There are a ton of configs out right now.

And why would a smaller, less powerful engine in anyway afford someone a performance advantage outside of weight that it costs to install and gas mileage (which is irrelevant with our fusion reactor or whatever engines)?

[One Medic Army]

If you look at the free tonnage/speed curves for the different weight classes (esp with Endo/Ferro available) it becomes clear that most stock mechs are at a speed where a larger chassis could go the same speed with more free tonnage for weapons/ammo/heatsinks.
Or in other words, a stock hunchback's speed is silly when you have the opportunity to go the same speed in a Cataphract while packing more firepower.

[Protection]

Inappropriate1191, on 11 February 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

I have one build where I run a smaller engine in. An atlas-RS, with a 285 engine. This saves tonnage, to allow me to run 4 large lasers and an AC/20. I only lose a very small amount of speed (2.5 KPH) and thanks to speed tweak, I more than make up for the loss. The only problem with this is that I lose an extra heatsink. It's okay, though. The sheer power it puts out is worth it.

If you would share your build, I am just about convinced I can make it a total improvement with a larger engine.

Use: http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab

Lukoi, on 11 February 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

WHY does every possible Mech combination need to be balanced?

I don't need every build to be balanced, but I want to discuss the disadvantages of slower designs and whether or not we should just expect every optimized design to run larger engines or if slow designs have any place in the competitive metagame.