Jump to content

Base Speed Increase Based On Tonnage


3 replies to this topic

Poll: Tonnage Based Speed. (11 member(s) have cast votes)

Should the devs implement a chassis tonnage based starting speed, as well as base top speed off of it tonnage?

  1. YES (3 votes [27.27%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.27%

  2. NO (8 votes [72.73%])

    Percentage of vote: 72.73%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 krolmir

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ironclad
  • The Ironclad
  • 258 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:22 AM

Can we get a base speed for mechs based on tonnage and not class? This list is based on the starting engine size, not the maximum engine size.

I.E.
These numbers do not include speed tweek....
100 ton mechs = 48.5 KPH (or no change from current on an Atlas with a 300 engine)
95 ton mechs = ? 50 KPH
90 ton mechs = 52 KPH (Highlander with a 275 engine, lower engine cap to 325)
85 ton mechs = 54 KPH (Stalker with a 255 engine, lower engine cap to 300)
80 ton mechs = 56 KPH (Awesome with a 240 engine, keep current engine cap, and give a 2 KPH bonus to top speed with a 300 engine)

The same could be done across all the mech classes and chassis in game. This would give each chassis a more individual feel, and help balance the underpowered chassis in each class. Also the converse could be used to balance an overpowered chassis.

A good example of this would be to lower the top speed of the Raven 3L by 10 KPH, and to increase the other raven variants speed by 10 or 15 KPH.

Speed, in many ways, equals passive armor, so why inadvertantly beat down a chassis by implementing mech class based speeds?

#2 Mechteric

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 7,308 posts
  • LocationRTP, NC

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:33 AM

I like that each variant can have its own maxes, for instance that's part of the appeal of the Dragon and the AWS-9M....

I think what you're really trying to say here is the Raven 3L goes too fast (with respect to balance with its other advantages), something I would agree with but not the rest of what you lay out there

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 12 April 2013 - 09:41 AM.


#3 blinkin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,195 posts
  • LocationEquestria

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:57 AM

this is already mostly covered by the engine size vs. mech weight calculations.

a catapult with a 300 engine goes far faster than an atlas with the same 300 engine.

#4 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:23 PM

It should be based on TOP SPEED, NOT TONNAGE. Top speed covers BOTH tonnage AND engine speed.

Otherwise, a Raven 2X would be valued the same as a Raven 3L... which is not even fair.

Same can be said for the Cent-D vs the other Cents.

The only oddball exception is the PB over say the Cata or Jager, where the PB's top speed with its best engine is better than the Cata/Jager. The actual difference between the two is the PB's acceleration is slower than the Cata/Jager due to tonnage.

Edited by Deathlike, 12 April 2013 - 12:26 PM.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users