136 replies to this topic

[Durant Carlyle]

Engine weights are not designed to be a linear progression, because 'Mechs aren't supposed to be able to use ratings that are that close together.

Engine weights were designed for stepped engine customization, not the granular every-five-rating version we have now.

A Commando should only be able to use engines in steps of 25 rating.
A Centurion should only be able to use engines in steps of 50 rating.
An Orion should only be able to use engines in steps of 75 rating.
An Atlas should only be able to use engines in steps of 100 rating.

And you do realize that the reason only light 'Mechs use sub-300 engines is because everyone has been taught that slow 'Mechs are worthless. Most 60-ton heavy 'Mechs normally start with 240 engines, but that's supposedly a death sentence in MW:O.

[stjobe]

Durant Carlyle, on 02 December 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

Engine weights are not designed to be a linear progression, because 'Mechs aren't supposed to be able to use ratings that are that close together.

Engine weights were designed for stepped engine customization, not the granular every-five-rating version we have now.

A Commando should only be able to use engines in steps of 25 rating.
A Centurion should only be able to use engines in steps of 50 rating.
An Orion should only be able to use engines in steps of 75 rating.
An Atlas should only be able to use engines in steps of 100 rating.

Just to add some (perhaps un-needed) clarity, the construction rules specified that a 'mech could only use an engine whose rating was a multiple of its chassis weight; a Centurion could use a 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, or 400 engine, but not any other engines. An Atlas had exactly four engine choices: 100, 200, 300, or 400.

I'm not entirely sure where this "pick whatever rating engine you want, as long as it's under the engine limit" came from, whether it's a PGI invention or if there were some advanced TT rules I've forgotten.

It would be interesting to speculate what would happen in MWO if the "engine rating must be a multiple of chassis weight" rule was implemented.

[Joseph Mallan]

The engine size is a strictly MW thing. TT you had to use the equation (Mech)mass* Hex Movement= Engine rating to determine your engine size. We don't have hexes so we don't need that equation any more.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 December 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

The engine size is a strictly MW thing. TT you had to use the equation (Mech)mass* Hex Movement= Engine rating to determine your engine size. We don't have hexes so we don't need that equation any more.

Mass * hex movement = engine rating is just another way of saying what I said above: Engine rating must be a multiple of chassis weight (mass) - the multiple is the desired movement speed.

But even if we don't need it, perhaps we'd want it?

I mean, take your Fatlas as an example; you'd have a choice of the stock 300 engine, upgrade to a 400, or downgrade to a 200 (or 100). Wouldn't this put a much needed restraint on the speed inflation of the current MWO?

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 03 December 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

Mass * hex movement = engine rating is just another way of saying what I said above: Engine rating must be a multiple of chassis weight (mass) - the multiple is the desired movement speed.

But even if we don't need it, perhaps we'd want it?

I mean, take your Fatlas as an example; you'd have a choice of the stock 300 engine, upgrade to a 400, or downgrade to a 200 (or 100). Wouldn't this put a much needed restraint on the speed inflation of the current MWO?

Or to much of one. As the DEVs have it arranged right now, I could not have a 400 rate engine in my Atlas, so being able to put a 350 in is preferred. TT HAD to be limited because of game mechanics (hex movement) Real time with constant movement does not have that limiting Mechanic. Its a TT Mechanic I am happy to not see.

[Karl Streiger]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 December 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

Its a TT Mechanic I am happy to not see.

But you are glad that they also has simple transfered the "maximum" speed?
Well at least its also a wrong value in all the TROs.... and should be renamed to cruise combat speed and flank combat speed.

Because: with given acceleration (it doesn't matter if your Atlas is a 0 mps or at 15mps - after 10sec he has traveled 150m. That means the uniform acceleration must be arround 3m/s² - that means the end velocity must be around 30m/s - so that Atlas must be much faster.
Of course ist abstract....maybe the Mech walks a little bit - stops for a brief time - fires it weapons - and accelerate again.

However - the speed is a wrong calculation since the first TRO. And while the Mechs in MWO have acceleration - they are much slower in comparison to TT.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 03 December 2013 - 07:30 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Karl Streiger, on 03 December 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

But you are glad that they also has simple transfered the "maximum" speed?
Well at least its also a wrong value in all the TROs.... and should be renamed to cruise combat speed and flank combat speed.

Because: with given acceleration (it doesn't matter if your Atlas is a 0 mps or at 15mps - after 10sec he has traveled 150m. That means the uniform acceleration must be arround 3m/s² - that means the end velocity must be around 30m/s - so that Atlas must be much faster.
Of course ist abstract....maybe the Mech walks a little bit - stops for a brief time - fires it weapons - and accelerate again.

However - the speed is a wrong calculation since the first TRO. And while the Mechs in MWO have acceleration - they are much slower in comparison to TT.

As I understood it back in Closed Beta Mechs travelling over 151 KpH were having lag shield if I remember the thread discussing it. So It was the best band aide for the moment.

An Atlas on TT moved at 54 KpH (supposedly), with my speed tweaks I get 53... on a 300 rate engine. Its close enough for me. Don't bore me with physics, is my Atlas slow and cumbersome feeling? Yup! Happy Pappy here.

[Artgathan]

Durant Carlyle, on 02 December 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

Engine weights are not designed to be a linear progression, because 'Mechs aren't supposed to be able to use ratings that are that close together.

Engine weights were designed for stepped engine customization, not the granular every-five-rating version we have now.

A Commando should only be able to use engines in steps of 25 rating.
A Centurion should only be able to use engines in steps of 50 rating.
An Orion should only be able to use engines in steps of 75 rating.
An Atlas should only be able to use engines in steps of 100 rating.

And you do realize that the reason only light 'Mechs use sub-300 engines is because everyone has been taught that slow 'Mechs are worthless. Most 60-ton heavy 'Mechs normally start with 240 engines, but that's supposedly a death sentence in MW:O.

The point isn't whether or not a given speed is useful, it is whether or not it is consistent with the rest in terms of tons / kph.

I would agree though with your assessment, and I'd suggest that most mechs are far too mobile in the game environment. It starts with everyone being able to torso twist fast (through pilot skills). Since Heavy / Assault mechs can now easily track Light / Mediums, Light / Mediums have to go faster, which causes Heavy / Assaults to increase their engine to track better which causes Light / Medium to increase their engine to evade better ... you see where this is going.

I'd be interested to know if anyone has the torso twist and turn speeds per engine rating for all mechs? As far as I know there's no published data on this anywhere. Using that we would be able to analyze mobility a bit better (using triangles we can determine exactly how fast Mech A needs to move to give Mech B a firing window of X seconds before Mech A leaves Mech B's FOV).

stjobe, on 03 December 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

Just to add some (perhaps un-needed) clarity, the construction rules specified that a 'mech could only use an engine whose rating was a multiple of its chassis weight; a Centurion could use a 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, or 400 engine, but not any other engines. An Atlas had exactly four engine choices: 100, 200, 300, or 400.

I'm not entirely sure where this "pick whatever rating engine you want, as long as it's under the engine limit" came from, whether it's a PGI invention or if there were some advanced TT rules I've forgotten.

It would be interesting to speculate what would happen in MWO if the "engine rating must be a multiple of chassis weight" rule was implemented.

Speculate no longer! I bring you numbers:

Essentially, using the TT Engine Construction Rules, you break every mech 50+ tons into different "Speed Levels":

• Level 1: 36.96 kph
  
• Level 2: 55.44 kph
  
• Level 3: 73.92 kph
  
• Level 4: 92.40 kph
  
• Level 5: 110.88 kph
  
• Level 6: 129.36 kph
  
• ... This continues

Mechs smaller than 50 tons start somewhere other than level 1 (for instance, 20 ton mechs start at level 4, 25 and 30 tonners start at level 3 and 35 - 45 tonners start at level 2).

The biggest exception to the rule is the Atlas, which starts at Level 0 (18.48 kph with a 100-Rated Engine).

How do these ratings stack up?

Let's take another look at the Jenner-Centurion-Cataphract-Atlas example from before. Due to the way TT engines work, we'll have them run with a STD engine that's roughly (VERY ROUGHLY) 25% of their total mass.

So:

• Jenner (25.7% Engine) - Level 4 Speed - 92 kph
  
• Centurion (23.0% Engine) - Level 3 Speed - 74 kph
  
• Cataphract (31.4% Engine) - Level 3 Speed - 74 kph
  
• Cataphract (18.6% Engine) - Level 2 Speed - 55 kph
  
• Atlas (25.0% Engine) - Level 2 Speed - 55 kph

Yikes. Comparisons are going to be a little tougher now that the percentage engines are all over the place. Let's look at the Jenner vs Centurion vs Atlas:

• Jenner vs Atlas: 4.78 Speed/Weight Ratio
  
• Centurion vs Atlas: 2.69 Speed Weight Ratio

Again, these values are inconsistent. Adjusted to match the Jenner's ratio, the Centurion should have a 3.34 Speed/Weight Ratio. Adjusted to match the Centurion, the Jenner should have a 3.84 Speed/Weight Ratio. These adjustments are an "either/or" - you wouldn't do both (or the Jenner would be too slow / the Centurion too fast).

What does all this come down to? Essentially we're stuck in the same place, but mechs are regulated to running at pre-determined speeds.

If we say "Lights must run at Level 6 speed, Mediums at Level 4, Heavy at Level 3 and Assault at Level 2" in order to be viable, the weight classes require an engine that (on average) takes up:

• Lights - 38.23% - Speed Level 6: 129 kph - Average Rating: 192.5
  
• Mediums - 34.54% - Speed Level 4: 92 kph - Average Rating: 237.5
  
• Heavies - 30.57% - Speed Level 3: 74 kph - Average Rating: 270
  
• Assaults - 22.89% - Speed Level 2: 55 kph - Average Rating: 270

Here we see a progessive downward slope in the amount of tonnage required to support a "viable" speed. If we shift the Medium/Heavy/Assaults up one Speed Level (so that they somewhat match the values in the OP) we see the same bell curve as in the OP (with Lights and Assaults having an advantage over Mediums and Heavies). An important point: if we drag lights down to Speed Level 5 they only use 27.04% of their tonnage.

If we drag everyone down into the same Speed Level (IE: everyone uses speed level 4 for instance) we see an almost linear progression in speed vs weight. IE: Lights (half the weight of heavies) use 17% vs the medium's 34%, Mediums (half the weight of Assaults) use 34% vs the Assault's 74%.

So what does this all go to show?

• When using TT Construction Rules, Engine Ratings jump all over the place. A 25% increase in speed (going up one "Speed Level") can be met with at much as 400% increase in Engine Weight (relative to mech size). In general: going from level 2 -> 3 uses 10% of the mech's tonnage (IE: if a level 2 engine costs 20%, the level 3 engines will cost 30% of your mech's weight). Going from level 3 -> 4 costs 10% for mechs 50 tons or less, 15% for mechs 55 - 65 tons, and 20% for mechs 70+ tons
  
• In general, the high mobility of Assault mechs has driven every other class to require higher speeds in order to be useful. Consider that in TT, if you wanted to do a 360 degree turn in an Atlas it would take roughly 2 rounds (IE: 20 seconds). Obviously this may be a bit extreme for an FPS. However by increasing the turn speed on mechs, the running speed of other mechs was nerfed (since you now need to run even faster to be able to evade the Assault mech's targeting sights).
  
• This push toward higher speeds disproportionately affects all weight classes below Assault, since lighter mechs are not able to mount the excessively large engines required to propel them at these increases speeds.

[Zyllos]

If the torso twist speed and agility of mechs were not tied to engine rating, having this openness with what engine could be equipped wouldn't be so much of a problem.

Engine rating vs tonnage should be tied to acceleration and mech top speed only. Agility and turning speed should be tied to the chassis only (and maybe other items, but not tied to the engine).

Edited by Zyllos, 03 December 2013 - 09:14 AM.

[Artgathan]

Zyllos, on 03 December 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

If the torso twist speed and agility of mechs were not tied to engine rating, having this openness with what engine could be equipped wouldn't be so much of a problem.

Engine rating vs tonnage should be tied to acceleration and mech top speed only. Agility and turning speed should be tied to the chassis only (and maybe other items, but not tied to the engine).

I think it's alright that Engine Rating is tied to Turn Speed (since that's how it works in TT - you can only turn as many hexes as you can walk / run), but I do think that Torso Twist should be tied to something else.

[Durant Carlyle]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 December 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

An Atlas on TT moved at 54 KpH (supposedly), with my speed tweaks I get 53... on a 300 rate engine. Its close enough for me. Don't bore me with physics, is my Atlas slow and cumbersome feeling? Yup! Happy Pappy here.

The 3/5 speed rating of the tabletop game is disproportionately fast, because it's actually supposed to be 3/4.5 but because a 'Mech cannot move half a hex it was rounded up. The MW:O speed for an Atlas with a 300 engine is 48.5 kph, which is accurate.

It's the same way with all odd walking movement rates -- 3/5, 5/8, 7/11, 9/14, etc. They are slower in MW:O than in tabletop.

TT Speed vs MW:O Speed
3/5: 54 vs 48.5
4/6: 64.8
5/7: 86 vs 81
6/9: 97.2
7/11: 118.8 vs 113.4
8/12: 129.6
9/14: 151.2 vs 145.8
... and so on.

[SniperCon]

Artgathan, on 03 December 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

I'd be interested to know if anyone has the torso twist and turn speeds per engine rating for all mechs? As far as I know there's no published data on this anywhere. Using that we would be able to analyze mobility a bit better (using triangles we can determine exactly how fast Mech A needs to move to give Mech B a firing window of X seconds before Mech A leaves Mech B's FOV).

Here are the equations for turn speed and maximum speed per engine rating. I don't know the numbers for torso twist.

Turn speed (degrees/s) = 22.93 + ( Engine Rating - ( Mech Tons * 2 ) ) / 5 * 57.33 * ( Mech Tons ^ -1 )
Maximum speed (kph) = 32.4 + ( Engine Rating - ( Mech Tons * 2 ) ) / 5 * 81 * ( Mech Tons ^ -1 )

This is before mech skill unlocks or mech quirks. Turn speed is based on stationary mech and is reduced slightly the faster you are moving.

edit: units

Edited by SniperCon, 03 December 2013 - 12:27 PM.

[TheCaptainJZ]

I don't know if anyone brought this up, but for lights, what about factoring the extra weight for the extra required heat sinks?

[stjobe]

Artgathan, on 03 December 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

I think it's alright that Engine Rating is tied to Turn Speed (since that's how it works in TT - you can only turn as many hexes as you can walk / run), but I do think that Torso Twist should be tied to something else.

Hmm... Referencing TT might bite you in the behind on that one; no 'mech could torso twist further than 60 degrees (one hex facing). As for speed; who knows? It was free in TT, so it could be construed as just about any speed that kept the pilot alive.

But I agree it shouldn't be tied to engine size like it is now.

And just because it irritates the {Scrap} out of me: Let's get rid of all the balance-destroying pilot skills (speed tweak, twist x, arm reflex, and the like). They just make it so PGI have to balance everything thrice; for no skills, basic skills, and elite skills - and it messes up weight class speed balance as I think I mentioned before in this thread.

[Durant Carlyle]

SniperCon, on 03 December 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

Turn speed (degrees/s) = 22.93 + ( Engine Rating - ( Mech Tons * 2 ) ) / 5 * 57.33 * ( Mech Tons ^ -1 )
Maximum speed (kph) = 32.4 + ( Engine Rating - ( Mech Tons * 2 ) ) / 5 * 81 * ( Mech Tons ^ -1 )

I don't know if your Turn Speed formula is correct, but I do know that your Maximum Speed formula is either overly complex or incorrect. Just looking at it made my head hurt.

Maximum Speed = (Engine Rating / 'Mech Maximum Weight) * 16.2
To get Tweaked speed, multiply the result by 1.1

Jenner with 300: (300/35) * 16.2 = 138.86
138.86 * 1.1 = 152.74

Locust with 190: (190/20) * 16.2 = 153.9
153.9 * 1.1 = 169.29

Battlemaster with 355: (355/85) * 16.2 = 67.66
67.66 * 1.1 = 74.43

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 03 December 2013 - 02:22 PM.

[aniviron]

Zyllos, on 03 December 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

If the torso twist speed and agility of mechs were not tied to engine rating, having this openness with what engine could be equipped wouldn't be so much of a problem.

Engine rating vs tonnage should be tied to acceleration and mech top speed only. Agility and turning speed should be tied to the chassis only (and maybe other items, but not tied to the engine).

This exactly needs to happen. I can distinctly remember the days before everyone had every pilot skill, my Hunchbacks felt a lot more useful, as I could actually get behind an assault and stay out of his cone of fire for more than a quarter second. Lights were even better at this.

This would also give many more mechs a reason to exist. Without the torso twist modifiers, many more mechs have a reason to exist. (i.e. the Awesome naturally has more torso twist and twist speed than the Victor/Stalker, an advantage which is almost totally negated by the fact that the STK and VTR get pilot efficiencies which put them into the "good enough" bracket that lets them consistently hit lights. We see the same thing with a lot of other mechs like Dragons and Catapults vs Jagers and Cataphracts, or Hunchbacks vs Cents and Shadowhawks.)

[Zyllos]

Artgathan, on 03 December 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

I think it's alright that Engine Rating is tied to Turn Speed (since that's how it works in TT - you can only turn as many hexes as you can walk / run), but I do think that Torso Twist should be tied to something else.

I meant to say "torso twist speed" instead of "turning speed"...oops.

Turning speed should be a function of mech tonnage and current speed. The lower your speed, the faster your turning speed but the higher your speed, the slower your turning speed is, with it all being based on a value for a mech's tonnage and type "mainly, chicken or humanoid legs.

I would also make chicken legs have faster turning speeds at high top speeds for a given tonnage but their movement type be lower for climbing hills. Humanoid legs have slower turning speeds at high top speeds for a given tonnage but their movement type be higher for climbing hills.

Of course, this won't happen because PGI has already destroyed the leg types to movement types idea. Some chicken legs have better movement types than humanoid legs.

[Zyllos]

stjobe, on 03 December 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

And just because it irritates the {Scrap} out of me: Let's get rid of all the balance-destroying pilot skills (speed tweak, twist x, arm reflex, and the like). They just make it so PGI have to balance everything thrice; for no skills, basic skills, and elite skills - and it messes up weight class speed balance as I think I mentioned before in this thread.

I would be fine with the pilot skills that break the chassis balance (like speed, twist, arm, ect). But I think replacing these with new skills would need to be in order.

But, now instead of a pool you just fill up, instead it's a module tree that you equip from the list of skills you learn on each mech. You can learn all the XP modules but can only equip so many of the XP modules per mech.

[stjobe]

Zyllos, on 03 December 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

I would be fine with the pilot skills that break the chassis balance (like speed, twist, arm, ect). But I think replacing these with new skills would need to be in order.

But, now instead of a pool you just fill up, instead it's a module tree that you equip from the list of skills you learn on each mech. You can learn all the XP modules but can only equip so many of the XP modules per mech.

Sort of like this? It'll be a two-year old idea in February and it would be glorious to have.

[Zyllos]

stjobe, on 03 December 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Sort of like this? It'll be a two-year old idea in February and it would be glorious to have.

It's a bit different from the original tree idea but it has many similarities.

Either system would be nice...