5 replies to this topic

[Xarian]

So it's been confirmed here that "Drop Decks" will let you pick one Light, one Medium, one Heavy, and one Assault for use in CW battles.

However, we all know that these mechs are not all made equally. The 60-ton Quickdraw is rarely going to be chosen over the 70-ton Cataphract or 75-ton Orion. The 85-ton Warhawk is rarely going to be chosen over the 100-ton Dire Wolf.

I propose adding a total tonnage limit to these drop decks. You would still pick your Light, Medium, Heavy, and Assault, but it would add the tonnage together in order to determine your total maximum. This limit might be 230 tons. So, let's say that you originally wanted to take an Atlas (100t), Jagermech (65t), Vindicator (45t), and Firestarter (35t) - this adds up to 245 tons, meaning that you would have to drop 15 tons. So you switch your Atlas out for a Stalker (85t). Alternately, you could switch your Jagermech out for a Quickdraw (60t) and Firestarter out for a Commando (25t).

Here's why: Mechs near the top of their weight class are nearly always better. This is most noticeable with Lights and Assaults, slightly less noticeable with Heavies, and even less noticeable with Mediums. Why:

• With Lights, you are nearly always speed-capped because Lights are fragile. Small engines are disproportionately heavy - the maximum XL engine on a Commando (25t), for example, weighs 4 tons less than the maximum XL engine on a Firestarter (35t). This translates into an extra 6 tons worth of weapons, heat sinks, and armor. Also, the lightest Mechs like the Locust and Commando are disproportionately fragile for their weight class.
  
• With Mediums, you either fall into the "fast" category or the "slow" category. Fast mediums (low tonnage) go very fast and are fragile - they behave more like light mechs. Heavier mediums (the "slow" category) are less fast and less fragile - they behave more like fast Heavy mechs, except that they are still Mediums so they don't take away from mechs in that weight class.
  
• With Heavies, you want to cram as much firepower as they can onto their frames, which favors heavier mechs, as they always have more available tonnage.
  
• With Assaults, you want to cram as much firepower and armor onto their frames as possible, just like Heavy mechs.
  
• Except for the very lightest mechs, there isn't much size difference between mechs in the same class; you don't gain any sort of bonus to hiding behind buildings or presenting a smaller target.
  
• Due to the way that the speed calculation works out, you always have more available tonnage by using a heavier mech. For example, an XL 360 engine in an Atlas (100t) costs you 23.5 tons (40t std); to go the same speed in an Awesome (80t) using an XL 290 engine costs you 15 tons (23.5t std). This is a difference of 11.5 tons (3.5 tons using std engine) favoring the Atlas. The lighter mech is only favored when you want to use very heavy standard engines (greater than 375 rating).
  
• More tonnage means more internal hitpoints. Even if the mechs had exactly the same weaponry, armor, and speed, the mech that weighed more would be superior.

[Zyllos]

Why even limit 1/1/1/1 if tonnage is introduced? Just make it where a player is limited to 4 readied mechs of a tonnage limit.

This would fit more inline with the respawn system spoken about in the CW thread.

Want more than 1 or 2 respawns? Take lighter mechs.

Edited by Zyllos, 11 September 2014 - 08:33 AM.

[Carrie Harder]

Zyllos, on 11 September 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

Why even limit 1/1/1/1 if tonnage is introduced? Just make it where a player is limited to 4 readied mechs of a tonnage limit.

This would fit more inline with the respawn system spoken about in the CW thread.

Want more than 1 or 2 respawns? Take lighter mechs.

Such an approach also does things like give low-end poop mechs a use (can spawn a lot of Lolcusts), doesn't alienate players who specialize in certain classes (i.e. Steiner scout lance enthusiasts or light specialists), and just overall means a wider variety of tactics being possible (forcing the same number of robots from each class restricts the number of choices available).

[Christof Romulus]

I think that your assertions are incorrect. You are putting too much value onto weight (I am not saying that weight doesn't play an important factor, I just believe that you are overvaluing it) and not enough value onto hardpoints.

You compare the Atlas to the Awesome, but what you failed to do was compare the Atlas to the Stalker - a mech that many would say is universally superior due to hardpoint placement and hardpoints.

Converting the system into weight, instead of class, would make the all too rarely seen Atlas less viable, and the already prevalent Stalker even more viable.

As for the Warhawk and the Direwolf, the issue here is that the mechs share an extremely similar performance profile, as well as physical profile (turning a corner and running into the Warhawk, vs a Direwolf, many mistake one for the other, always assuming Direwolf, all the time) so the Direwolf becomes the superior choice all the time.

[Xarian]

A straight tonnage limit would be more fun, I agree. But PGI seems to really like this 1/1/1/1 system, and modifying it with tonnage limits is one way to make gameplay more varied and make seemingly-inferior mechs still useful. A tonnage-based 4-mech (of any class) system would also work.

I like the idea of respawning multiple light mechs, but it couldn't be straight tonnage. 5 Firestarters are a lot more valuable than 2 Battlemasters, for example, but those same 2 Battlemasters are going to be a lot more useful than 8 Locusts unless it's Conquest. For this, you'd need a type of BV system which, as many have discussed, would require a lot of work to get the balance worked out.

The Stalker is a great mech, but is definitely not universally superior; for one, there's no ECM variant, and it's a lot slower than the Atlas due to its engine choice being capped at 310. It's great at its role but its role is significantly more limited than the Atlas.

I'm not overvaluing weight at all. Every mech that is considered a "stinker" for its weight class is at the bottom end of its weight class, except for Medium mechs. Every mech at the top of its weight class is considered good or great, except for the Kintaro.

Stinkers
- Locust
- Commando
- Dragon
- Quickdraw
- Awesome

These mechs are essentially nonexistent except for the occasional guy who plays them for the challenge.

[Christof Romulus]

Xarian,

You make a good point. The mechs that are at the bottom of their weight class do tend to be underpowered. The issue here, though, is that the mechs at the top of their weight class aren't necessarily the best - so having a system based purely upon the weight would only further encourage the use of the Timberwolf, Stalker, and other high-meta mechs.

As for the Stalker being slow...
A Stalker using a 310 engine is going to move faster than an Atlas using a 300

A Stalker using an 255 engine moves at the same speed as the Atlas using a 300.

Effectively, both mechs use identical movement profiles - the Atlas using the largest engine it can fit (not counting the Boar's Head) will be moving at the same speed as a Stalker using the largest engine that it can fit.