1
Gaan Cathal, on 10 October 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:
And the 1.4x rule is a damn stupid one.
I'm not about to argue that, though it sounds like there was a time where every ran the biggest engine they could with just enough firepower during Closed Beta (which also lacked HSR) and this is the reason for limits based on stock. It is 1.4X for lights, 1.3X for mediums, 1.2X for Heavies, and 1.1X for assaults (Or a 400 rated engine, whichever comes first).
It does vaguely suggest a focus for certain mechs in that Ravens and Commandos simply cannot devote more than X tonnage to an engine. Though the 3L Raven and the Commandos were already effectively identically speedy to all other, it's only this move in speed cap that actually stops them from going even more into engine for their primary tonnage sink.
Though PGI also decided to tie accel/deccel/turn speed/arm movement into engine rating... So mechs at the extreme end win out in all these areas...
Gaan Cathal, on 10 October 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:
If you're going to limit engine size based on a range-from-stock then presumably you should be limiting max weapon tonnageand armour the same way?
These exist as well... Well Armor at least, weapons are only limited by hard points and total tonnage. Armor though is fixed at a max per tonnage of the mech. This is why even though the Locust has 4 tons of stock armor in TT and the Spider only carries 3.5, in MWO the Spider can mount 6.6 tons and the Locust maxes at 4.6 tons (Well technically it is capped by the armor value and not by the armor tonnage, but it has the same effect). So the more well armored Locust loses to the modified Spider in armor.
Gaan Cathal, on 10 October 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:
If there's an issue with supa-fast Assaults or Heavies (although I'm unsure why they'd be a problem given how much tonnage they'd need to divert off of payload to get that speed, but the engine limit predates my joining the game) then make limits based on weight-class. Or at least define engine ranges by Chassis, not Variant - that'll leave a few less mechs DoA.
The problem with engine maxes by weight class is 2 fold:
* Weight classes are artificial TT classifications and functionally mean nothing (It's why I don't agree to having differing valueXstock engine limits).
* The exceptions to a class. These are the Cicadas, Quickdraws, and Dragons primarily. They act more like the weight class below them than the rest of their own class because stock they run fairly beefy engines for their weight (the QD and Dragons only mount a 300 engine, but compared to most of the rest of their range a 300 at their tonnage is big).
If you base the cap on the exceptions then those exceptions lose their uniqueness. If you lower the cap you exclude stock builds of these exception mechs. At which point we are back to needing a value based on stock engines. Personally I'd actually lower this to be equal for all mechs, but lights and mediums need the extra speed. So the only way that would work is with a higher speed tweak rating on lights and mediums...
Captain Stiffy, on 10 October 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:
400XL, no weapons, cap accelerator, seismic, laugh all the way to the bank er, well not bank, but still.. laughing!
Besides the 400XL still being out of consideration atm, a 400XL Cicada maxes at 162 kph (178.2 kph) making it easy prey for any light mech since you would have almost no armor (Less than most lights) and no weapons... In fact after mounting that engine you have 2.5 (standard) tons or 4.5 tons (ES) of space left... The Cicada is just to heavy to compete for speed past what it does now or the new cap and even so the free tonnage versus engine weight scale is best for it around 300. A 380 XL would at least offer offer max armor and a couple tons of weapons (4/6 SL? 2/3xML? depending on FF or not).
Edited by Shadey99, 10 October 2013 - 07:08 PM.
