136 replies to this topic

[Artgathan]

Greyboots, on 28 November 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

First, The actual number of chassis is irrelevant. The number of chassis worth playing on the other hand is a different matter. Still, that's a whole other story.

Second, despite the number of chassis on offer, as above, Mediums is a class. On average they should represent about 25% of the mechs fielded. So why do we see less? It actually has far less to do with number crunching like this than people imagine.

To address a few points:

In a perfectly balanced game, if something represented X% of the content available, you would see it X% of the time.

As to your second point, about number crunching, it is exactly this sort of thing that pushes people away because it makes mediums inferior. While I doubt that most people actually break out the calculators and do the math, I do think they go "I want to run a 100+ kph medium... WHY IS THERE NO SPACE LEFT?"

Quote

Look around the forums and look at the number of players measuring their performance by how much damage they do and how many kills they get.

How much easier is that to achieve in heavies and assaults?

There's a big part of your answer.

Big mechs are where they want to be because that's what leads directly into that goal. They buy a medium mech, charge into battle to play this way and get utterly smashed by a hail of AC and LRM fire doing 84 damage and getting no kills. They come to the immediate conclusion that "medium mechs suck" and move on to heavies and assaults.

This is also a free game and this means a LARGE NUMBER OF YOUNG PLAYERS. Big booms, massive damage and lots of kills are all that really matter. The Shadowhawk has turned this a bit but generally speaking it's pretty much right.

Mediums are then primarily for more skilled players who understand the added complexity it takes to both build effective mediums AND pilot them effectively. Flame me if you like but mediums probably require the highest skill level in the game AND the most player knowledge and understanding to build.

Of course this is going to make them rare.

There's a few fatal assumptions in here, one of which is that since MW:O is F2P there is a large number of young players (and that young players play mostly heavy and assault). I would assert that since MW:O is attached to the Battletech Franchise, a large number of players are BT Veterans (and therefore not "young" in the sense that they lie in the 18-25 bracket). Additionally, since this game is billed as a "think man's shooter" I think the intended audience is more mature.

Quote

I appreciate the effort you've gone to but considering the video above, it's questionable whether anything needs to be done except wait for more players to advance sufficiently along the learning curve to understand how to build and play mediums.

In fact, I've played 1000 damage games with my BJ-1, BJ-3, Kintaro and Hunchback 4G and I frequently see 700 damage games out of mediums in the final tally for match scores. It's obvious that there's quite a few people out there that have come to grips with the engine weight issue, have worked it all out and doing just fine.

So basically this comes down to l2p? Suck up the fact that engine weights are actively hampering the viability of an entire weight class and carry on?

I don't mean to suggest that mediums cannot ever do something useful. Obviously in the hands of a capable pilot with a decent build they will be able to perform. However! Consider this: you did all of that in a sub-par mech (because of engine weights). Imagine what it would have been like if you'd have a bit of extra room. Not much, maybe just 1 or 2 tons. How much would that improve your build?

[Corbon Zackery]

Your mech has a gyroscopic stabilizer, and that gyroscopic stabilizer has limits as to how much speed it can compensate for. That's why you have eng. restrictions.

[Captain Stiffy]

You can slow and careful with anything and do a bazillion damage. I can do "OK" in a light with 6 LL's that goes 20KPH.

But that doesn't mean the class is fulfilling it's intended role.

With no intended functionality between weight classes the game instantly becomes not only vanilla flavored but also... Assaultwarrior.

[Durant Carlyle]

Artgathan, on 28 November 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

I didn't mention it because that's not actually relevant to my point, which is that to achieve "good" mobility relative to their class they're paying disproportionate amounts of tonnage. Consider that if the Trebuchet used an engine that cost 25% of it's weight it would run at 73 kph.

That is precisely what XL engines are for. And they are acceptable in medium 'Mechs.

Artgathan, on 28 November 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

Why shouldn't a fast cicada (40 tons) be able to overtake a slow Jenner (35 tons)?

Cicada is a special case, and you know it. It was designed as a light-hunter, and by default goes faster than a Jenner. An 81 kph default speed medium shouldn't be able to get anywhere near that speed. I mean c'mon ... with all mediums zooming around at 120+ kph what exactly would light 'Mechs be used for? Hint: the answer is "nothing."

Artgathan, on 28 November 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

Yes, but the posted analysis doesn't go over what the mechs actual top speeds are. A CN9-D has the 390 STD engine in the list of permissible engines for the chassis, even though the engine weighs 106% of the mech's weight. Again though, max engine size is determined on a per-variant basis (the Stalker and Battlemaster cannot carry the same range of engines, despite both being 85 ton mechs) so utilizing a stat like that would add more complexity to the data.

That's because the Stalker is an average-speed assault (48.5 kph default) and the Battlemaster is an above-average speed assault (64.8 kph default).

And the Centurion-D can take a 390 engine ... just not a Standard one. The fact that the Standard one is "available" in the list is a quirk/bug of the game.

And for detailed 'Mech information, use Solaris7. You can post up your own tabletop-legal BattleMechs created using programs like Solaris Skunk Werks (yes, with an "e"), and even look up the 'Mechs from most of the official TROs. They are under Armory Center > Standard TROs. They don't have the newest ones entered in yet though.

BTW, regarding your Sarna quote in Post #24 ... They were referring to tabletop, where mediums often could get the upper hand because of their mobility. Tabletop doesn't have pinpoint convergence, so MW:O mediums will never live up to that quote. No amount of buffing will change that.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 28 November 2013 - 09:50 PM.

[Artgathan]

Durant Carlyle, on 28 November 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

Cicada is a special case, and you know it. It was designed as a light-hunter, and by default goes faster than a Jenner. An 81 kph default speed medium shouldn't be able to get anywhere near that speed. I mean c'mon ... with all mediums zooming around at 120+ kph what exactly would light 'Mechs be used for? Hint: the answer is "nothing."

The mediums would run from 115 kph to 134 kph, while lights run from 140 kph to 170 kph (still a significant speed advantage). Also, the implication that no medium should ever be able to keep up with a fact belies the fact that mech tonnage is a continuum. What is the real difference between a 35 ton and 40 ton mech? Sure we call one a "light" and the other a "medium" but these are arbitrary designations. Consider that the weight difference between a Spider and a Jenner (16% increase in mass) is greater than the difference between a Cicada and a Jenner (14% increase in mass).

Consider that many 40 / 45 ton mediums are still used in the "reconnaissance" role, and have stock speeds of 97+ kph (the same at TT lights).

That aside, I generated a few new charts to show some interesting facts. The first shows what speeds I get from a given weight of mech if I say "I want 30% of my mech to be a Standard Engine, so that I can have 30% firepower and 30% armor! It'll be balanced!" [Ignore for a second that this only adds up to 90% of a mech].

The second shows the same thing, but adjusted for HS requirements (IE: If I want 30% of my mech to be engine on a Centurion, I take a 225 rated engine. However I now need 1 HS. So I reduce the size of the engine to a 210 to be able to take the weight of the HS, without sacrificing my armor or firepower)


What do these charts show?

The first shows that speed values end up pretty constrained (ranging from 51kph on an Atlas to 121 kph on a Locust). Lights run at an average of 104 kph, Mediums clock in at 75 kph, Heavies at 63 kph and Assaults at 55 kph.

The second chart is more interesting. The first thing you'll likely notice is that the lights dive in speed. What causes this? Well it turns out you can't actually build 20 and 25 ton mechs in the way I described. The locust has only 6 tons to devote to engine space. A 100-STD engine weighs 1 ton and requires an additional 6 HS. 30 / 35 tonners get regulated to 125 Engines. (Note: there's a discrepancy in the graph, the 30/35 tonners are listed as going slower than they should be).

Using these new numbers (adjusted for HS), build a mech with 30% STD engine gets you:

• Light: 67 kph
  
• Medium: 70 kph
  
• Heavy: 63 kph
  
• Assault: 55 kph

Based on this, it seems pretty clear the the current Engine + Heatsink system works heavily in the favour of Heavy and Assault mechs.

[Durant Carlyle]

Lights aren't supposed to be able to carry a big standard engine, lots of armor, and lots of weapons. That's why they have to sacrifice firepower and armor to go fast.

A stock Locust-1V carries 92.8% of its maximum armor and goes 129.6 kph, but only carries 3 tons of weapons/ammo.
A stock Commando-2D carries 71.9% of its maximum armor and only goes 97.2 kph, so that it can carry 8 tons of weapons/ammo.
A stock Spider-5V carries 53.3% of its maximum armor and only 2 tons of weapons, so it can go 129.6 kph and have 8 jump jets.
A stock Jenner-D carries 53.8% of its maximum armor so it can go 113.4 kph, have 5 jump jets, and carry 7 tons of weapons/ammo.

[Artgathan]

You do realize that even if mechs carry an engine that weighs relatively the same (IE: a 30% engine on a Locust, vs a 30% engine on an Atlas) that the Atlas will still have more guns right? The locust would have 6 tons of weapons vs the Atlas' 30 (assuming both allocate 30% of their tonnage to weapons).

[Khobai]

Quote

Now is the problem that mediums aren't mobile enough or is the problem that people try to cram engines that are far to large into mediums and thus lack hard hitting weapons?

If a medium doesnt move faster than a heavy than whats the point of playing a medium? You HAVE to cram a large XL engine into a medium to compete, and thats the WHOLE problem.

If you play a medium that goes less than 100kph you might as well just trade it up for a heavy with 30% more weapons and armor that still goes a respectable 80kph.

Quote

You do realize that even if mechs carry an engine that weighs relatively the same (IE: a 30% engine on a Locust, vs a 30% engine on an Atlas) that the Atlas will still have more guns right? The locust would have 6 tons of weapons vs the Atlas' 30 (assuming both allocate 30% of their tonnage to weapons).

Yes but mediums need to go considerably faster than heavies to compete, and a medium that has to spend 40% on its engine to go 100kph cant allocate as much proportional tonnage to weapons as other mechs. This puts mediums at a noticeable disadvantage. Especially when their lower max armor and scaling issues already make them easier to kill than heavies.

Again, the easiest way to fix this mess, is just give each weight class a unique skill tree. Its not that hard to do and it allows PGI to adjust the relative power levels of all weight classes.

Edited by Khobai, 29 November 2013 - 12:33 PM.

[Durant Carlyle]

You have to cram a huge XL engine in lights to compete.
You have to cram a huge XL engine in mediums to compete.

How is that a problem? That sounds like business as usual for every MechWarrior game I've ever played. Just like having as much armor as you could cram on was normal.

The major differences between this game and those others are:
Granular engine choices instead of stepped engine choices.
Hardpoint limitations instead of no limitations whatsoever (in MW2 and MW3).

[Almond Brown]

Durant Carlyle, on 28 November 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

Engine rating limits are based on the default engine of the variant.

Light: Default engine rating x 1.4
Medium: Default engine rating x 1.3
Heavy & Assault: Default engine rating x 1.2

The reason a Hunchback doesn't have the same engine rating as a Cicada is because the default speed of the Hunchback is 64.8 kph (200 engine) while the default speed of the Cicada is 129.6 kph (320 engine). They are designed for totally different roles, so the Hunchback should not be able to go the same speed as a Cicada when both are maxed out.


Stats from 3050 TRO (Inner Sphere 'Mechs only):
Lights: average speed 97.2 kph (6/9), average 7.37 tons (140 tons total from 19 'Mechs) available for weapons
Mediums: average speed 81 kph (5/7.5), average 16.40 tons (393.5 tons total from 24 'Mechs) available for weapons
Heavies: average speed 64.8 kph (4/6), average 24.19 tons (435.5 tons total from 18 'Mechs) available for weapons
Assaults: average speed 48.5 kph (3/4.5), average 32.76 tons (557 tons total from 17 'Mechs) available for weapons


You're forgetting to mention that the Trebuchet goes nearly twice as fast as the Atlas for those weight percentages.

Perhaps the "optimal" speeds people are trying to hit with the mediums are a bit too high, leaving too little tonnage for the rest?

Mediums shouldn't be trying to match the speed of even the slowest customized lights. They should be trying to mount more/better weaponry and armor than lights.

You're also making the assumption that lights should always use XL engines but no other class should, ever. That's not true.

The Standard 245 engine for default speed on a Jenner takes up 48.6% of its weight. A Standard 300 engine for maximum speed takes up 83.3% of its weight. Those are more in line with your percentages for the Centurtion, Trebuchet, Highlander, and Atlas, yes? Doing those percentages for a standard heavy 'Mech would likely also fall in that same pattern.


I was arguing one particular point of one post. The post I quoted suggested explicitly that I didn't know what I was talking about, while my experience shouted out the opposite. You know as well as I do that I wasn't claiming "I drive lights so I know best."

Oh, and I brought numbers this time. You like?

The rating numbers game got played after a lot of folks complained. The Medium class took the biggest hit. You are correct to say that a Medium should not try and reach the slowest of the Light speeds, but given that many very important agility based factors are tied directly to the installed Engine size, twist speed, turning, acceleration, deceleration etc. etc. going small to save tons for "other" things simply hampers a Medium Mechs ability to fight those Mechs it was designed to fight off. The fast moving, agile cornering, quick acel/decel based Lights and other Mediums.

So the mediums have to go BIG on engine to get the perks they used to before the big ratio debacle.

[Khobai]

Quote

You have to cram a huge XL engine in lights to compete.
You have to cram a huge XL engine in mediums to compete.

How is that a problem? That sounds like business as usual for every MechWarrior game I've ever played. Just like having as much armor as you could cram on was normal.

Its a problem because MWO allows precise aiming and because most mediums are the size of heavies if not the size of assaults. Pinpointing their XL engines is very easy.

[Artgathan]

Durant Carlyle, on 29 November 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

You have to cram a huge XL engine in lights to compete.
You have to cram a huge XL engine in mediums to compete.

How is that a problem?

That's not the problem. The problem is that the engine on the Medium is disproportionately heavy for the speed it gets you. Let's take a look: 4 mechs that use 30% of their weight for an XL engine.

• Jenner - 120 kph
  
• Centurion - 105 kph
  
• Cataphract - 87 kph
  
• Atlas - 70 kph

We compare how the ratio of the mech's weight compares to the ratio of the mechs speed. This allows us to determine how much faster a given mech runs for every percentage of it's tonnage it devotes to an engine.

Therefore, if we compare the Centurion and the Atlas, we find that for every +1% engine size the Centurion uses, it will run 3kph faster than the Atlas that increases its engine size by 1% (IE: the Atlas will gain 1 kph for every 3 kph that the Centurion gains). However, the Jenner gains 4.89 kph compared to the Atlas. But wait, that seems wrong. Why? Well, if we compare the relative stats, based on the Centurion we would expect the Jenner to run 4.28 kph compared to the Atlas. (Conversely, the Centurion adjusted to meet the Jenner should run at 3.42 kph vs the Atlas).

Let's also compare the Jenner vs Cataphract to the Centurion vs Atlas (since in each case they're half / double the weight).

The Jenner gains 2.76 kph for every 1 kph the Cataphract gains, while the Centurion gains 3.00 kph for every 1 kph the Atlas gains. These numbers are not equal - but they should be! (I'm not going to say which should go up/down because that's not important). Why should these numbers be equal? Because we're comparing mechs that have the same proportion of their mass (30%) to mechs that have double that mass. If a Jenner runs 1.37 times as fast as a mech 2X its weight, the Centurion should also run at 1.37 times as fast as a mech 2X its weight (currently it runs at 1.5 times as fast).

If we compare both the Jenner and Centurion to the Cataphract, the Jenner gains 2.75 kph, while the Centurion gains 1.69 kph. Again, this is not expected. Properly adjusted, the Jenner should gain 2.41 kph, or the Centurion should gain 1.93 kph. (The second pair of values is generated by multiplying the 1st kph value (2.75 and 1.69) by the ratio of the Jenner and Centurion's weights).

Now, I'm not saying that Lights go too fast. My point is that the engine system we have in place at the moment is giving inconsistent performance across all weight classes. The inconsistencies are more favorable to Light and Assault mechs, and less favorable to Medium and Heavy mechs. You can frame this in two ways:

• Lights and Assaults pay too little for their speed
  
• OR Mediums and Heavies pay too much

Both of these are true statements given the numbers that have been presented. I'm not calling for a specific adjustment - I'm suggesting that something needs to be done to make the system consistent.

Yes, lighter mechs should be faster than a similarly tonned mech that outwieghs them. But everyone should be paying the same amount for their engines.

[aniviron]

Artgathan, on 27 November 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

Does anyone have any input?

First of all, an excellent post. I wish I could give you a dozen 'likes' to make this appear on the front page of topics.

I will add that your data seem to describe very much my experience as a driver of Hunchbacks since CB. My options are all bad- a 200 engine rating lets me hit pretty hard (an ac20 + a few mlas and decent armor +heat eff) but gives me a top speed of 64 kph, which is just not fast enough for something that has so little armor. A 250 lets me run an acceptable loadout (ac20, but skimping on armor, heatsinks, ammo, and cutting most of the mlas from the build), but still only gets me up to 81kph, which is nice but means I am still getting outrun by a lot of heavies, and am not significantly faster than many assaults. The relatively-recent change to 275 engines is just not something I've played around with much, because at that point you're downgrading to an AC5 plus some mlas.

What made the HBK-4P so good (for a medium) and why I think it was singled out for nerfing with ghost heat was that medium lasers are so light, it could run a relatively hard-hitting configuration of 8mlas and still pack a 250 engine, which meant 81kph. Yes, it had heat issues, but being able to be faster than most assaults while still taking a weapons config that doesn't make your opponent shake with mirth meant it was a mech that a competent pilot could do very well in.

And it's for this reason above everything else that I think the agility patch for mediums did nothing to boost their numbers on the field- just about every medium was already running the largest possible engine that wouldn't reduce them to nothing but a few medium lasers or SSRM2s to fight with. Having a larger engine rating doesn't matter if you can't use it.

The final thought I have is that I think it's a bit premature of you to dismiss the scaling of medium mechs as a reason for their under-utilization. Think of it like this: every light mech runs an XL engine. Why? Because they're small enough that it's very difficult to target the side torso for destruction instead. With most lights, you're either aiming at the body or the legs, unless they're shutdown- so taking an XL is a lot less risky, which means they're faster which means that the XL risk is reduced even more. With a medium, the mech is large enough that when you see one running a loadout too heavy for its weight, it's easy just to blow out the side and be done with it. If mediums were properly scaled, it wouldn't be so easy to shoot out sides like it is now, which in turn increases the number of mediums that can run XL engines, and increases their overall speed/firepower ratio.

[Durant Carlyle]

You do realize that this is the most consistent MechWarrior game there has ever been (speed-wise anyway), right?

Artgathan, on 29 November 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

Jenner - 120 kph
Centurion - 105 kph
Cataphract - 87 kph
Atlas - 70 kph

Let's look at the speeds and their relationships a minute, shall we?

The difference between the light and medium is 15 kph. Between medium and heavy is 18 kph. Between heavy and assault is 17 kph. Which one loses out on that exchange? The light. Which one gains the most? The medium.

At the speeds you listed, every 'Mech is viable except for the light. A light going 120 kph is a dead light. The speeds listed for the other three are pretty damn quick. I wouldn't hesitate to run those speeds in a medium, heavy, or assault. But that speed for a light? I wouldn't want to go that slow, unless there was a specific (very good) reason and I was on a team specifically built to take advantage of that. I have a hard enough time doing anything worthwhile at 152.7 kph in my Jenner. Going 120 kph would be a serious handicap.

A question: Are the engine masses EXACTLY 30% of the tonnage of the 'Mechs? Engine weight granularity is confined to half-tons and full-tons. Some of them should be quarter-tons, so that could be throwing numbers off as well.

Maybe that's the inconsistency you're seeing. There are many possible reasons for it, but it wouldn't be fixed by having engines in lights and assaults give less kph per rating and engines in mediums and heavies give more kph per rating. How is doing that in any way consistent?

By the way, your numbers are contradictory.

In one section you state that the Centurion gains 3.00 kph per rating when compared to the Atlas and the Jenner gains 2.76 kph per rating when compared to the Cataphract. That means the medium clearly is winning this comparison.

Yet your conclusion states that lights and assaults are winning the comparison and mediums and heavies are losing. Shouldn't ALL comparisons indicate that lights are winning, not just some of them?

What about:
20 versus 40
25 versus 50
30 versus 60
40 versus 80
45 versus 90

I'm not running the numbers, but I'm sure somebody will.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 29 November 2013 - 11:35 PM.

[Kilrein]

This emphasis on speed is misleading because speed is being measured in kilometers per hour so the difference between 100 kph and 150 kph is seems pretty significant.

But in context of the actual battles, the difference is not that much once two units engage.

Here's some math, sorry.

The maximum that range can change is equal to (.28 meters/second x speed difference). So in one second, the range between the mechs in the example below would change by 14 meters.

If a light mech (150 kph) is at 120 meters from a streak medium mech (100 kph) and wants to disengage it will take that light mech approximately 10.6 seconds to extend the range to just over 270 meters during that time the streaks can cycle three times. Yes, there a quite a few assumptions here (no jump jets, both units moving a a straight line in same direction, no obstacles, etc) but I wanted to show that speed differences, while the can have an affect, don't carry as high an affect as a lot of people think due to the short engagement ranges, fast weapon cycle times, small maps and long weapon ranges in relation to lines of sight.

[Thorqemada]

In 10,6 seconds you can get 3 times 1-shot by AC20s...

Lights do not use speed primarily to run away but to take initiative in an engagement - Mediums can not do so bcs the Heavys and many Assaults move at or very close too Medium-Mech-Speed while many Mediums have Assault-Mech-Size.

The one weightclass that really gets a significant benefit from Speed and Size is that of the Lights bcs all Lights can almost all the time move more than 50% faster than their opponents whle having less than 50% of the size.

Unquestionably Lights and Assaults - the both extremes of the weightclasses - get the most out of the game mechanics!

Edited by Thorqemada, 30 November 2013 - 05:55 AM.

[stjobe]

Thorqemada, on 30 November 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

Unquestionably Lights and Assaults - the both extremes of the weightclasses - get the most out of the game mechanics!

And yet heavies are the most played weight class and lights the least.

I suspect there's something amiss in your conclusion.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Because heavies in general gave the best blend of speed, armour, hardpoints and agility.
It would be interesting to see if that is still true, especially at the higher levels of Elo/12 man.

[Thorqemada]

Well, why dont all People Minmax?
Why do some People drive an Awesome?
Why are Locusts around?
Rolewarwhere?

Many things happen despite the Meta and the game mechanics - that does not in any way invalidate my claim about Lights and Assaults getting the most benefit out of the game mechanics!

Edited by Thorqemada, 01 December 2013 - 02:18 PM.

[Artgathan]

Durant Carlyle, on 29 November 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:

Let's look at the speeds and their relationships a minute, shall we?

The difference between the light and medium is 15 kph. Between medium and heavy is 18 kph. Between heavy and assault is 17 kph. Which one loses out on that exchange? The light. Which one gains the most? The medium.

At the speeds you listed, every 'Mech is viable except for the light. A light going 120 kph is a dead light. The speeds listed for the other three are pretty damn quick. I wouldn't hesitate to run those speeds in a medium, heavy, or assault. But that speed for a light? I wouldn't want to go that slow, unless there was a specific (very good) reason and I was on a team specifically built to take advantage of that. I have a hard enough time doing anything worthwhile at 152.7 kph in my Jenner. Going 120 kph would be a serious handicap.

Those differences are trivial. (A difference of 3 kph amounts to less than a 1 m/s difference). Also, refer back the first page. You'll notice that 35 ton mechs fall pretty close to the "ideal" line I threw in, so they're one of the groups that gain the least from engines under the current system. Assaults, in particular 90+ tonners, are the worst offenders.

Quote

A question: Are the engine masses EXACTLY 30% of the tonnage of the 'Mechs? Engine weight granularity is confined to half-tons and full-tons. Some of them should be quarter-tons, so that could be throwing numbers off as well.

They're exactly 30% for the Jenner, Centurion and Atlas. It works out to 29.28% of the Cataphract's mass due to the granularity of engine weights.

Quote

Maybe that's the inconsistency you're seeing. There are many possible reasons for it, but it wouldn't be fixed by having engines in lights and assaults give less kph per rating and engines in mediums and heavies give more kph per rating. How is doing that in any way consistent?

That [granularity of engine sizes] could definitely be an explanation. I haven't had the time to whip up a spreadsheet going over engine size vs weight though.

Quote

By the way, your numbers are contradictory.

In one section you state that the Centurion gains 3.00 kph per rating when compared to the Atlas and the Jenner gains 2.76 kph per rating when compared to the Cataphract. That means the medium clearly is winning this comparison.

Yet your conclusion states that lights and assaults are winning the comparison and mediums and heavies are losing. Shouldn't ALL comparisons indicate that lights are winning, not just some of them?

The comparison in question sets off based on a different premise than the original in the OP. Originally I was talking about how much space a mech would need to hit a designated speed mark (based on mech weight). The example given was the inverse - how much speed do you get for a given weight?

Based on the granularity of engine sizes (mentioned above) it's possible that in this specific example there are margins of error to blame.

After running the numbers (below) I've come to a new conclusion.

Quote

What about:
20 versus 40
25 versus 50
30 versus 60
40 versus 80
45 versus 90

I'm not running the numbers, but I'm sure somebody will.

Here's the numbers:

• 20 vs 40: 3.06
  
• 25 vs 50: 2.76
  
• 30 vs 60: 2.80
  
• 35 vs 70: 2.76
  
• 40 vs 80: 2.74
  
• 45 vs 90: 2.88
  
• 50 vs 100: 3.00

Based on this Mediums and Lights appear to be on pretty equal footing - when using an XL engine that accounts for 30% of their mass.

Kilrein, on 30 November 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

This emphasis on speed is misleading because speed is being measured in kilometers per hour so the difference between 100 kph and 150 kph is seems pretty significant.

But in context of the actual battles, the difference is not that much once two units engage.

Relative differences translate directly into absolute values. If I say "mech 1 runs 1.5 X faster than mech 2" that is always true, no matter the units used. The point here isn't about the actual values, it's about the relationships between them. Specifically, that there should be a constant relationship between engine size and speed output but there isn't one.

Based on the numbers I ran for Thorq, there appears to be inconsistencies in the dataset. However, there is a good explanation for them:

• In the OP I analyzed how much of their mass a mech had to spend to hit a specific speed.
  
• In the examples on this page, we discussed how fast a mech goes when it spends 30% of its mass on engine.

"So why are the numbers inconsistent Art?" I hear you ask, "Aren't they essentially the same question phrased differently?"


The explanation for the inconsistencies is thus: in the OP, the engine sizes tended to be pretty huge (mediums used engines ranging from 330 to 355), while in the recent examples they were much smaller (mediums used engines ranging from 250 to 305).

So the answer lies in the weights of the heavier engines. Behold:



An important point to note: this graph does not account for HS requirements. Adding the HS requirements just makes the line much flatter at the beginning.

As you can easily see, there's exponential growth in engine weight at work - IE: heavier engines are disproportionately sized. Let's use this new information to look at the results in the OP, compared to the recent examples, once again:

To reach the optimal speed in the OP, mechs need:

• Lights: Engines Rated 190- 280
  
• Mediums: Engines Rated 330 - 355
  
• Heavies: Engines Rated 360 - 380
  
• Assaults: Engines Rated 360 - 395

In the previous "30%" Example, we were looking at:

• Lights: Engines Rated 195 - 235
  
• Mediums: Engines Rated 250 - 305
  
• Heavies: Engines Rated 315 - 350
  
• Assaults: Engines Rated 360 - 390

So! There appears to be a "break even" point somewhere along the engine continuum. After this point it becomes disproportionately heavy for Medium and Heavy mechs to carry large engines. More specifically, it seems that in order to reach "fast" speeds, Medium and Heavy mechs must carry large engines, but large engines have a diminishing return on investment. (IE: You go from paying 0.5 tons to gain 2 kph to paying 2.0 tons to gain 2 kph). This difference isn't as pronounced for Assault mechs because the differences between engine ratings are small.

For instance, increasing the Engine Rating (not weight) by 5 has the following effects:

• Lights: +3.38 kph [4.45 kph on 20 ton - 2.54 kph on 35 ton]
  
• Mediums: +1.90 kph [2.23 kph on 40 ton - 1.62 kph on 55 ton]
  
• Heavies: +1.33 kph [1.49 kph on 60 ton - 1.19 kph on 75 ton]
  
• Assaults: +0.9 kph [1.11 kph on 80 ton - 0.89 kph on 100 ton]
  
• Note: These values (roughly) account for speed tweak

But not all Engine Ratings of +5 are created equally - those at the lower end of the engine chart often cost the same (for instance, XL 150 - 170 engines all cost 4 tons) or have small difference, while those at the higher end of th engine chart have large differences (STD 360 -> 365 = 1.5 tons, 365 -> 370 = 2 tons).

This just re-inforces my original point however: we need to have a consitent engine system. Even if there is only a narrow band of Engine Ratings that generate these strange results they need to be brought into line. As stated earlier in this thead, the engines that cause these inconsistencies tend to be the more frequent models on the field. How can we address these issues?

• By re-working the Engine Rating system so that we use a more diverse array of Engines on the field (instead of the current system where almost only light mechs will use sub-300 engines)
  
• By modifying the current system so that it is more consitent (going over the current engine weights and adjusting them so that they fit a consistent pattern).