13 replies to this topic

[Foxfire]

Currently PGI uses a set of calculations based on the class of the mech and the 'stock' speed of the mech to create a bound of engine ratings and speed, both upper and lower, that a mech can have.

Since there exists variants with different stock speeds within the same chassis, this leads to wonky issues such as the Centurion that can equip a 395 engine when the rest are limited to 340.. or the Ravens where the 3L can use up to 295 while the X variants are limited to 245. This also exists for the Blackjack, the Cataphract, the Awesome, and I'm not sure if I am forgetting any other mechs that are on that list.

So, should PGI change the way they calculate engine size from determining the engine band of that particular variant to using them to create an engine band for the entirety of the chassis? For example, if we look at the Centurion and we see that one variant, under current calculations, warrants the ability to equip a 395 that all variants of the centurion should be able to pack one in if they choose to do so.

Edited by Foxfire, 14 September 2013 - 05:08 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

I would say yes and here's why:

All the chassis are basically the same, same internals, same hitpoints. A HERO would be just another variant with the chassis and would then be within the range of acceptable engines for that chassis and not therefore be a new baseline with which to judge an increased expansion.

[Xanquil]

I would rather they start limiting engines to multiples of chassis tonnage with the stock speed being the base. If a 50t mech has a 200 engine base it would than have a choice of 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300. As for it being on a chassis by chassis basis I'm all for that, it gives more reasons to have a different mechs.

[Khobai]

Id say no. The last thing we need is for variants to be even closer than they already are. At least having different engine speeds mixes it up a bit.

[Urdnot Mau]

Yeah. This brings reasons to chose or not chose one or other variant. Like a variant with more firepower VS a variant with a mix of firepower and speed

[Foxfire]

Khobai, on 14 September 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

Id say no. The last thing we need is for variants to be even closer than they already are. At least having different engine speeds mixes it up a bit.

It leads to some variants being inherently inferior. Especially in chassis that are dependent upon speed. For example, why would anyone take the Cent-A over the Cent-D? Then you also have the Raven. There is no reason, at all, to field a 2X over a 3L unless you are grinding experience to master the Raven... and this is completely discounting ECM for the 3L.

Urdnot Mau, on 14 September 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

Yeah. This brings reasons to chose or not chose one or other variant. Like a variant with more firepower VS a variant with a mix of firepower and speed

Granting every variant on a chassis the complete engine range available across the entire chassis will do nothing to change the choice between firepower vs speed. What it does do is allow for that choice to be made with more mechs AND helps to eliminate instances where one variant is inherently inferior to another one.

[Indoorsman]

Foxfire, on 15 September 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

It leads to some variants being inherently inferior. Especially in chassis that are dependent upon speed. For example, why would anyone take the Cent-A over the Cent-D?

The CN9-A is an amazing mech, it's better than the D IMO. Having different engine ranges on the dif variants gives you more variety even with the same chassis. I voted no.

[Foxfire]

Indoorsman, on 15 September 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

The CN9-A is an amazing mech, it's better than the D IMO. Having different engine ranges on the dif variants gives you more variety even with the same chassis. I voted no.

Then what do you propose for those variants that are clearly inferior due to engine restrictions?

I'll grant that the A makes a better zombie mech than the D but that only lasts until something is done to address how hard it is to hit the Cent torso.

[Khobai]

Quote

Then you also have the Raven. There is no reason, at all, to field a 2X over a 3L unless you are grinding experience to master the Raven

Well the 35-40 ton mechs need lower speed caps in general, because the only way the 20-25 tons mechs will be viable is if they can outrun the 35-40 ton mechs that outgun them.

[Foxfire]

Khobai, on 15 September 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

Well the 35-40 ton mechs need lower speed caps in general, because the only way the 20-25 tons mechs will be viable is if they can outrun the 35-40 ton mechs that outgun them.

That is an issue of the artificial speed cap placed by PGI.

You can't really back down the 35 tonners because that makes them very vulnerable(take a Raven 2X or 4X out for a spin and you'll see what I'm talking about, especially if you are used to piloting lights).

[vv3k70r]

Difrent chasis of a mech are produced using moduls of difrent quality, it is why in some chasis with servos from a good series You can put engine that can drive them a bit faster than a standard version.
It should be so.

But the proce of repairs such actuators should be painfull.

[Durant Carlyle]

The current engine maximums are based on the default engine rating of the variant. Some variants are newer and have higher-rated engines to begin with.

Should they change that? No.

If they do, they shouldn't make the chassis maximum equal to the maximum of the fastest variant. They should make the chassis maximum equal to the maximum of the slowest variant.

[Lordred]

I would rather this be taken to another step. IS mechs only able to equip whole and half tonnage engines in regards to the mech.

most people do not like this idea.

I would love to see this put into effect though.

[ImperialKnight]

engine rating is a form of balancing, you can't just "normalise" (and please stop using that word) engines without changing whole other aspects of the mechs like hardpoints and quirks