31 replies to this topic

[Lordred]

While i am sad that most dislike the idea, I respect your opinions.

[Modo44]

Yes, limit IS mechs further. Clan mechs really need a boost due to their current sad state.

[Danghen Woolf]

Lordred,

I applaud your idea, you have presented not only a plausible system you have backed it up with facts and figures. I agree that allowing only select engines in each mech may change some of the meta game. I also agree that there are other things that would need to be adjusted to create this change, maybe downtime for mechs, maybe similar to EVE Onlines' training system. Mech variants were created to solve problems such as too little firepower = - engine size or armor + weapons, too slow = + engine size - equipment or armor, too fragile = + armor - engine size or equipment. The current system implicitly renders many varaints obsolete in the eyes of many players as a slower mech with better hardpoints can usually be made as fast as the faster variant with little sacrifice. Well done.

[Kmieciu]

Can you imagine the outrage if people found out that all of their highly customized mechs have invalid loadouts? Some people might have even sold the stock engines and their mechs would be completely unusable?

I like OP's idea. It would bring more diversity into the game. Same as the "armor limits" idea. But it's far too late to implement such dramatic changes. PGI would not gain anything from it. Hence, it will not happen.

[Fire and Salt]

A car with 301HP will go faster than a car with 300 HP.

However, their top speeds when rounded to the nearest 10 will likely be the same.



The engine size steps in TT are an artifact of simplifying the math so that the game can be played by people on a grid without calculators. It is not a limitation that should sensibly be carried over to this game.

Also, as far as I know, it wasn't that a mech couldn't upgrade from a 270 to a 275, it was that there was no benefit to doing so because of rounding to the nearest integer. (Though such an engine may or may not be readily available)



I do agree that something should be done with the 'bad' engine sizes; xl275 needs a reason to exist.
I propose that all of the inferior sizes have a 'quirk' attached.
EX: XL275 gives +1 internal structure in each of the 3 torso sections.

I would also like to see something sililar to engines that are 'almost' not worth it, such as the XL305 when compared to the XL300. The 305 requires a full 1 ton increase in gyro weight in the rules, so it is much heavier for little gain. I suggest that this engine gets a gyro buff that has a similar effect to the advanced gyro module. Same should apply to the 205, and to a lesser extent, the 210 and 310.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

I say no. It would kill a lot more builds to fix a few outliers.

One such example is the atlas. Right now, a well built ninja DDC with a 350 is a huge threat to a Direwolf. Restrict it to either the 300 or the 400 to keep it the same as TT movement brackets would kill it, making the Direwolf the defacto best 100 tonner.

Then there are the Stalkers and Battlemasters, who are direct competitors to the Warhawk. Where again, nerfing their engine selections would make the Warhawk the defacto best 85 tonner.

Basically, many IS builds rely heavily on odd engine sizes to be viable. In the microcosm of IS on IS, this would have had plenty of merit. But now that clans are here, it's lost much of it's merit. TT was a very kludgy way of abstracting movement.

[Lordred]

JohanssenJr, on 16 July 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

I say no. It would kill a lot more builds to fix a few outliers.

One such example is the atlas. Right now, a well built ninja DDC with a 350 is a huge threat to a Direwolf. Restrict it to either the 300 or the 400 to keep it the same as TT movement brackets would kill it, making the Direwolf the defacto best 100 tonner.

Then there are the Stalkers and Battlemasters, who are direct competitors to the Warhawk. Where again, nerfing their engine selections would make the Warhawk the defacto best 85 tonner.

Basically, many IS builds rely heavily on odd engine sizes to be viable. In the microcosm of IS on IS, this would have had plenty of merit. But now that clans are here, it's lost much of it's merit. TT was a very kludgy way of abstracting movement.

You did not look at the chart I take it.

[Nightmare1]

For crying out loud, can we stop comparing this game to TT??? This isn't TT! This is MWO! If anything, it should be compared to other MechWarrior Titles, but you can't compare an instantaneous, simulation-style video game to a static strategy board game!

Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of board games! My favorites are the Axis and Allies series. You just can't compare apples to oranges though, and this seems to be happening so often in these threads!

Finally, PGI shouldn't take away something that people already have equipped on their Mechs. I'm aggravated enough over them adding that extra slot or two to Endo-Steel - it ruined several of my builds! Let's stop trying to Nerf and tweak stuff into disuse and focus instead on improving the game through the addition of unreleased content like CW.

Is that really too much to ask?

[Azakael]

ATM87, on 22 June 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:

I agree with this with one requirement; PGI needs to fix the problem with "required" heatsinks taking up weight when you have an engine smaller than 250. Right now, if you equip a smaller engine than a 250, you have to install up to the required 10 heat sinks, which is fine, but it eats up tonnage on a mech that need all the weight they can get. In tabletop, those heatsinks take up internal space but don't weigh anything extra.

As the pilot of an "urbanmech" spider, it's frustrating that I'm paying a 6 ton "tax" to be slow as molasses.

Problem is, the total weight for the TT engine and the MWO engine are identical.
Case in point, your UrbanMech Spider, assuming a 100 rating engine.
In MWO, unequipped, your Spider weighs 3 tons - internal structure. You equip your STD engine - 1 ton. You equip your heat sinks - 6 tons. 10 tons total.
In TT, unequipped a Spider weighs 3 tons. You equip your STD 100 rating engine (Legal, but not *done* in TT) - 3 tons. You get an additional 6 heatsinks outside the engine free. Your Gyro (Which is already accounted for by the engine in MWO) costs another 1 ton. Now you add your cockpit, (Oddly also included in the weight of the Engine in MWO. Should have been included in the unequipped weight. Whatever. I don't program the game.) cockpit adds another 3 tons. 10 tons total.

You are not paying a 'tax' on your slower speed. The fact that external heat sinks are not included in the weight of the engine are offset by the fact that gyro and cockpit weights *are* included. Unfortunately, the fact that they did that is: 1 - what prevents the UrbanMech from being included. (It has a 60 rating engine. Which would mean that the engine would have to have a negative weight (-2.5) to offset the heatsink weight to bring it to the cockpit, engine, gyro weight of 5.5); 2 - will bite them in the ass once alternate cockpit and gyro sizes become available. Though there is a distinct possibility that they may not be included since the game can't account for the penalty to skills for the cockpit. And compact gyros would be less useful for survivability (It's main purpose in TT) and more for being able to fit a larger gun in a CT hardpoint. (PPC in my CT? Why not?)

[Wolfways]

Nightmare1, on 22 July 2014 - 08:08 AM, said:

For crying out loud, can we stop comparing this game to TT??? This isn't TT! This is MWO! If anything, it should be compared to other MechWarrior Titles, but you can't compare an instantaneous, simulation-style video game to a static strategy board game!

You do realise that PGI are using TT as the basis for MWO right?
Also, MWO is no closer to previous MW titles than it is to TT. Previous MW = missions played out over battlefields. MWO = A skirmish in arenas. TT = Skirmishes on small maps (but also including combined arms).

[Nightmare1]

Wolfways, on 22 July 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

You do realise that PGI are using TT as the basis for MWO right?
Also, MWO is no closer to previous MW titles than it is to TT. Previous MW = missions played out over battlefields. MWO = A skirmish in arenas. TT = Skirmishes on small maps (but also including combined arms).

Yes, although I still think it silly. TT is a board game; we're talking about a video game here. That automatically makes it closer to the previous MW game titles than to TT in terms of its most basic needs and mechanics, so why PGI and some forum contributors are continually trying to make this a TT-based-but-not-really-TT game is beyond me.

Let's just use the books and previous MW titles and forget TT. MechWarrior Tactics exists to mirror TT; MWO shouldn't try to mimic something that has a different nature and purpose.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Lordred, on 22 July 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

You did not look at the chart I take it.

I did. And it would obsolete IS now that we have clan mechs.