36 replies to this topic

[Spheroid]

Engine usability rating. I own all these engines.
　
　

150 STD = terrible
180 STD = ok
195XL = niche
200 STD = good
200XL = good
225 STD = bad
250 STD = good
255 STD = limited
260 STD = excellent
260XL = excellent
265 STD = accidental purchase
270 STD = great
275 = slightly too heavy
280 = good
280XL = good
295 STD = super niche
295XL = niche
300 STD = universal engine
300XL = must have
320 STD = niche
320XL = niche
325 STD = good
350 STD = heavy
350XL = must have
360XL = must have

Edited by Spheroid, 14 October 2013 - 08:27 PM.

[BookWyrm]

Hmm, interesting concept. But more workable with a spreadsheet showing speed per engine at a certain tonnage as they are variable. Unless we're stating that these are the engines that are more likely to easily transfer and work well in multiple mech chassis.

[Spheroid]

BookWyrm, on 14 October 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

Hmm, interesting concept. But more workable with a spreadsheet showing speed per engine at a certain tonnage as they are variable. Unless we're stating that these are the engines that are more likely to easily transfer and work well in multiple mech chassis.

Correct, it reflects how many good useable builds each engine gives in my personal experience.

[Galenit]

Spheroid, on 14 October 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

Engine usability rating. I own all these engines.
260XL = excellent

I call it fail,
265 XL = same weight then the 260 XL and it costs only 80k cbills more.


The engines depends on mechs, loadout and playstyle, the most used engines for me are xl 265, xl280, xl295, xl300, i have 2 from each of them.
Often switching between them on my cicada and catapult (all 4 engines) or raven (only the 295/280) when playing around with builds.

The 265/280/295 differ by 1 ton, switching between them gives you 1 or 2 tons more or less to play around and finetune.

Edited by Galenit, 15 October 2013 - 03:58 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

if an engine works has exact two reasons:
first is it a product of 25?
Engine Rating / 25 = numbers of heat sinks in the engine:
So in my arsenal:
there is the
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
(in some cases but mostly below 275 - two engines may have the same weight)

There are some reasons not to use one of these engines, for example the Catapract 3D can only mount a 340 max.

So i have to ask myself - should i take this bigger engine or not?
The answer is simple:
Each additional rating of 5 give your Mech 81/mech tonnage more speed in kph (without speed tweak)

So in case of the Catapract the 340 will give me 3*81/70 = ~ 3.5 with speed tweak ~3.9 kph more speed and slightly better twist and turn rates...for additional 1.5t and 300,000 cbills.
So I build the mech of my choice - and after wards i look if there is still some not used tonnage that I can use for the engine.

But that is not the only concern: I can mount that 325 on my Highlander -but not a 340 same goes for the Trebuchet.

[TercieI]

The "25s" is a good start, but there are exceptions. For instance, the XL250 is identical to the XL255 in weight. You can only justify mounting it if you have it "in stock" from a purchased mech, IMO.

I actually have a spreadsheet with all engines listed and graded for these conparisons. Once I get the Phoenix loadout details incorporated, I'll post it.

S

[Buckminster]

Nice thought - I'd be interested to see some compiled list of engines and how "useful" they are. Everyone says that the XL300 is a must because of all the mechs that benefit from it, and I think it's available as a standard on one of the variants, but I honestly can't back that up.

But with the cost of XL engines, new players would really benefit from a cost to versatility analysis. Sure - your Catapult can use that XL315, but are you shooting yourself in the foot going full size since it won't fit in your Jenner? Would you be better off buying the XL300 so that you can get more use out of it?

[Karl Streiger]

Terciel1976, on 15 October 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

The "25s" is a good start, but there are exceptions. For instance, the XL250 is identical to the XL255 in weight. You can only justify mounting it if you have it "in stock" from a purchased mech, IMO.

I actually have a spreadsheet with all engines listed and graded for these conparisons. Once I get the Phoenix loadout details incorporated, I'll post it.

S

The Thunderbolt runs with the same engine as did the Catapult or Jaeger (so 315 max)
The BattleMasters base engine is the 340 so 400 is the maximum (max is 84 with speed tweak )

All Shadow Hawks have a 275 (the 5M has a 275 XL) so 360 is maximum

Locust...must be 225 (but thats 225/5*81/20 = 182 kph without speed tweak )

Edited by Karl Streiger, 15 October 2013 - 06:09 AM.

[TercieI]

Buckminster, on 15 October 2013 - 06:05 AM, said:

Nice thought - I'd be interested to see some compiled list of engines and how "useful" they are. Everyone says that the XL300 is a must because of all the mechs that benefit from it, and I think it's available as a standard on one of the variants, but I honestly can't back that up.

But with the cost of XL engines, new players would really benefit from a cost to versatility analysis. Sure - your Catapult can use that XL315, but are you shooting yourself in the foot going full size since it won't fit in your Jenner? Would you be better off buying the XL300 so that you can get more use out of it?

Well, I hope to include just the "math" basics and let wiser and more experienced heads comment from there.

Karl Streiger, on 15 October 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

The Thunderbolt runs with the same engine as did the Catapult or Jaeger (so 315 max)
The BattleMasters base engine is the 340 so 400 is the maximum (max is 84 with speed tweak )

All Shadow Hawks have a 275 (the 5M has a 275 XL) so 360 is maximum

Locust...must be 225 (but thats 225/5*81/20 = 182 kph without speed tweak )

The Locust is one question. The other is are we sure of the non-Phoenix variants' loadouts on the others? I'm not a big fluff guy, so I'm not (though I believe you, it's just a pity the XL275 is a lemon unless it's max engine for a chassis). So knowing what they come with is the other piece of the info I need. I don't have time to do it today, so I'll get the info when they're out and try to upload tomorrow.

My belief is that with engine costs being so high, you're a fool to buy an inferior one, but you also may be a fool to buy a superior one (say an XL255) if you have an only-slightly-inferior on (XL250 from a TBT-7M you own) "in stock."

S

Edited by Terciel1976, 15 October 2013 - 06:28 AM.

[Bront]

275 is nice in larger mechs over the 270 because of the extra crit spaces you free up. You basically paying for 3 free crit spaces if you mount more than 10.

XL325/330 should be a nice engine as well for a similar reason.

I'd also list the XL255 and 260 as the same. The 255XL weighs the same as the 250XL

[Spheroid]

I acknowledge there are some engines in the XL class that weigh the same, but if you get an 260 XL included with your Jager is it really worth the millions of C-bills to get a very slightly better engine? I say no.

Edited by Spheroid, 15 October 2013 - 08:27 AM.

[TercieI]

Spheroid, on 15 October 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

I acknowledge there are some engines in the XL class that weigh the same, but if you get an 260 XL included with your Jager is it really worth the millions of C-bills to get a very slightly better engine? I say no.

I completely agree (and say so two posts up).

My only disappointment with today's patch is that the pretty awful XL245 has now crossed into utterly useless.

S

[Buckminster]

Not completely useless. I have no intention of rejiggering my Ravens because of a new engine cap. I barely piloted my 2X and 4X anyway, and it'll be even less now that I have the Locusts. I've also used it in a Catapult, which allowed me to up the amount of missiles and ammo I was carrying. The 250 would have probably been a better option, but that 245 was already in my mech bay.

What I'm disappointed in is the increase in the cap to the Commando. The Locust moved 8/12 and the Commando moved 6/9 - half the reason to grab the Locust was it's crazy speed. With the new engine cap for the Commando, they've taken away the one thing special the Locust had.

[TercieI]

Buckminster, on 15 October 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

Not completely useless. I have no intention of rejiggering my Ravens because of a new engine cap. I barely piloted my 2X and 4X anyway, and it'll be even less now that I have the Locusts. I've also used it in a Catapult, which allowed me to up the amount of missiles and ammo I was carrying. The 250 would have probably been a better option, but that 245 was already in my mech bay.

What I'm disappointed in is the increase in the cap to the Commando. The Locust moved 8/12 and the Commando moved 6/9 - half the reason to grab the Locust was it's crazy speed. With the new engine cap for the Commando, they've taken away the one thing special the Locust had.

Well, being a 9 HS engine (vs. the 10 of the 250/255), the XL245 only ever saves you .5 ton at the cost of three slots for the additional double heat sink it requires. That's why I think it's useless. Most builds I've looked at it in (Admittedly not Catapults) are tight enough that those three slots are worth more than that half-ton (and in fact, you can sometimes get more with FF and those three slots will prevent that).

I got my 2X and 4X through basic for the sake of the 3L and with an XL275 coming along with one of the Shadowhawks, I'll want to master them. They're the only lights I haven't that I care at all about (still hate the "other" Spiders)

I don't know the math, but I don't think the Commando is going to be able to go 170 with an XL240. I think this will result mostly in there being advantages to non-Jenner/ECM lights, when right now, there just aren't any. What's really needed for that is tonnage limits, of course.

S

Edited by Terciel1976, 15 October 2013 - 11:52 AM.

[Buckminster]

There's some sort of "speed multiplier" to get the exact speed, but I'm going with this math:

Locust: 190/20 = 9.5
Commando: 240/25 = 9.6

Compared to their stock TT values:

Locust: 160/20 = 8
Commando: 150/25 = 6

If anything, it looks like the Commando will be a hair faster, when it should be 25% slower..

And I do agree that the 245 is rubbish. The only reason I put one in my Cat was because I already had it. Otherwise, I would have gone with a 250.

[TercieI]

Buckminster, on 15 October 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

There's some sort of "speed multiplier" to get the exact speed, but I'm going with this math:

Locust: 190/20 = 9.5
Commando: 240/25 = 9.6

Compared to their stock TT values:

Locust: 160/20 = 8
Commando: 150/25 = 6

If anything, it looks like the Commando will be a hair faster, when it should be 25% slower..

And I do agree that the 245 is rubbish. The only reason I put one in my Cat was because I already had it. Otherwise, I would have gone with a 250.

Wow. Yeah. That's hard on the Locust if that's the math.

EDIT: If Karl's math above is right, the Commando with a 240 will go 155.52. That...works. My TDK will be taken out of mothballs soon.

And I'm sure you meant a 255.

S

Edited by Terciel1976, 15 October 2013 - 12:13 PM.

[Buckminster]

A 255... but of course!

[TercieI]

According to Smurfy, it looks like you're right.

Locust top (post-tweak) 169.3
Commando (non-2D, post-tweak): 171.1

Yikes.

S

[Bront]

Spheroid, on 15 October 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

I acknowledge there are some engines in the XL class that weigh the same, but if you get an 260 XL included with your Jager is it really worth the millions of C-bills to get a very slightly better engine? I say no.

But what if you never get a Jeager? Or you get the 5S Stalker that has a 255XL? (Part of why I wanted that mech).

I think rating the engines on an ideal build usage is better than simply what's best because I have it? Doesn't mean a 260XL is worthless, but the 255XL is probably slightly better if you're buying an XL in a vacuum.

[TercieI]

Bront, on 15 October 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

But what if you never get a Jeager? Or you get the 5S Stalker that has a 255XL? (Part of why I wanted that mech).

I think rating the engines on an ideal build usage is better than simply what's best because I have it? Doesn't mean a 260XL is worthless, but the 255XL is probably slightly better if you're buying an XL in a vacuum.

I've thought about this and come up with a few categories: Optimal, usable if on hand but suboptimal (not all come on anything, XL250 is the poster child for this category), best for some mechs (XL275 for a mech capped at 275 being a key example, XL280 otherwise superior), highly questionable (the XL245 will save you .5 ton, but cost you three slots) and garbage (XL230 for instance)

When I get the list done, that's how they'll be graded.

S