12 replies to this topic

[zencynic]

*** I would like to see a less segmented Engine upgrade system than TT BT rules.

This isn't a request that is easily phrased in a single sentence that is both coherent and complete,. I will try to explain.

Lets look at the Awesome AWS-8Q

Under the TT rules, this 80 ton mech has 11.5 tons used in the engine and a walking speed of 3.
If we want it to go faster, we need to upgrade to a 22.5 ton engine for a walking speed of 4
A walking speed of 5 would require a 52.5 ton engine. Look at the Charger CGR-1A1 to see how good of an idea that is.

XL engine technology gives us a few more options, but only at the price of increased vulnerability. A standard fusion engine mech can lose a side torso and keep fighting, or at least run away. An Inner Sphere XL engine is destroyed if it loses a side torso. There is also the price of increased, well, price. An XL engine usually doubles the price of of a mech.

The XL engines are 1/2 the mass of their equally rated standard fusion counterparts, so we are looking at 6.0, 11.5, and 26.5 tones respectively.

This situation channels mech modification down predictable paths. Certain sized engines can fit set amounts of space-free heat sinks. Large-increment break-point tonnage engines leave the player with specific amounts of free tonnage left over for weapons load outs, leading to predictable choices.

I understand why this is the case in TT BT. The game is played on a hex grid. You can move 3 hexs or 4 hexs or 5 hexes. You cannot move 3.2 hexes. This restriction does not apply to MWO.

Initially, I was going to request a continuous spectrum of engine size placement and effect. For example, upgrade from a 240 to a 250 for a small tonnage increase and a small speed increase. I can see where this might be a problem to implement. I can hope though.

An easily implemented idea comes to mind.

**** Introduce the Light Fusion Engine earlier than 3062. It bridges the gap nicely between standard and XL fusion. Not perfect, but better.

[KageRyuu]

I'm fairly certain they'll stick to canon regarding tech, so no Light Engines for you for another 13 years.

Regardless, "continuous" engine upgrades were horribly implemented in MW4 so much so that it's tarnished the image of the idea for me at the very least (more may share this opinion, unknown), so I hope to every god out there that they keep to the TT rules regarding engine upgrades. After all any upgrade to the engine less than 10kph is almost completely unnoticeable and thus a complete waste of time and effort.

Edited by KageRyuu, 21 June 2012 - 04:55 PM.

[Tincan Nightmare]

The problem is, if your a 50 ton mech (such as the Centurion or Hunchback) and have a walking speed of 4 (40 some kph) that means you have a 200 rated engine. To get to the next benchmark you have to go up to a 250 rated engine with (I think) a 4 ton increase. Now if they implemented the system you suggest, and the mech could just pick from a 210 to 240 rated engine, would it be worth the tonnage increase of those engines for an increase of less than 10 kph? It would seem like a general loss of weight for very little gain, just a few kph.

[BlackAbbot]

Introducing Lostech/Advanced Tech before date because you think the options aren't good enough is a terrible idea. Doing anything to stop the channelling of 'mech modification down predictable paths' is a terrible idea. These are not OmniMechs.

[ManDaisy]

Thing is we're not moving on hexes. I DO support partial engine "continous?" speeds to get the most tweak I can get.

Edited by ManDaisy, 21 June 2012 - 05:31 PM.

[zencynic]

From the first Dev Q&A http://mwomercs.com/...developer-qa-1/ with my underlining

"What difficulties have you had transferring the mechanics from the tabletop game to a PC game, and what mechanics have you had to change or modify? Since this is a reboot, will history change in-game or do you mean reboot in the same way as a movie franchise is rebooted?


[MATT N] Hey you said REBOOT! You win a prize! Someone knows how to get their questions answered! Good job!

[PAUL] Challenging question and I’ll try my best to answer. There’s been a common misconception amongst the community that I’d like to clear up. While MechWarrior® Online™ does refer to BattleTech® for historical and canon reference, it does not mean that it’s a direct port of the table top rules to a videogame. The table top rules are laid out to make sense for a turn based strategy game. Some of those rules just don’t apply when dealing with a real time game environment. Core rules such as munitions accuracy, heat management and movement speed will have to be tuned for real time gameplay and will differ in varying degrees from the table top rules. How far they differ will come out of gameplay testing and tuning and at this point I cannot comment further on how that progress is going. It is an exciting time in the studio right now and I don’t want to release information too soon and have it change on you, the community, later. I am quite vulnerable to pitchforks and torches."

[Truck Thunders]

Here's the thing about engines; even in real life you can't get any size/speed engine you want to for any car or truck. They come with a certain number of engines, and just like in TT once you get the car it's difficult to impossible to replace the engine on most cars. What you CAN do is tweak those engines to get more bang for the buck. This obviously isn't something you can do with a piece of modern military hardware (militaries generally frown on their technicians putting nitrous injectors in their tanks), but since a lot of battlemechs are privately owned an idea like this would seem more feasible to me than drastically increasing the number of available engines. After all, it would save a lot of time and hassle to have your mechlab techs work on improving your existing hardware rather than making them gut the engine and rebuild the entire torso chassis and all attachments to put in a new engine that will only gain about 5-10 KPH.

Now, as for tweaking the engine, I'm not sure that would work in MWO either, though it certainly wouldn't be impossible. It would take a lot of thought and effort to balance it properly; the offset that comes to mind (in addition to cost) could be something like critical slots or an increased critical hit chance. But a totally new engine system? I don't see it happening.

[Team Leader]

BlackAbbot, on 21 June 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

Introducing Lostech/Advanced Tech before date because you think the options aren't good enough is a terrible idea. Doing anything to stop the channelling of 'mech modification down predictable paths' is a terrible idea. These are not OmniMechs.

People dont live forever. If you are gonna wait 23 or something years to get your favorite tech introduced, than Im glad you have found some place to die alone.. The internet. Im sick of people making arguments like this. We dont live in the BattleTech universe, we live in real life. Its a GAME. They can introduce whatever they want, when they want.
edit: just realized this sounds pretty mean and terrible. Sorry bout that, but I just find that really annoying when people say it.

Buuuuuut back on topic.. there should be smaller incremental changes you can make to the engine. Not as extreme as TT, or as fine as MW4, but somewhere in the middle.

Edited by Team Leader, 21 June 2012 - 06:43 PM.

[BlackAbbot]

You misunderstand me, while I do wish people would actually give IS/3049 tech a go instead of instead of just constantly complaining that they can't have a Timber Wolf, I have no problem with a more rapid rate of advancement than 1 year per year. I do have a problem with cherry picking things and throwing them in though. I'm sure the Devs have a better idea of what is planned than my mere speculation, but something episodic is always a possibility, with a year or three to play through the initial Clan invasion to the Battles of Luthien and Tukayyid and then a jump forward to 3057 or later.

[zencynic]

I didn't love the way MW:4 did engines, but I did appreciate the option it presented. "oh good, I have my weapons loadout the way I want, plenty of heat sinks and my armor maxed. I still have 2 tones of mass. I guess I'll just click up my engine rating a few notches"

As it stands now. there are 4 standard fusion engines you can put in an Atlas - the 100, 200, 300, and 400. Two of these make you slower than dirt and one makes you as fast as a normal heavy but unable to carry an assault weapons load. That leaves you with one choice, and that is not much of a choice

In the TT rules, there was a good reason for this to be the case - the hex grid. The MWO incarnation is a 'real-time' game engine. This limitation need not apply.

I do not see much merit in the argument that 'these are not omni-mechs'. No they are not. They are MWO mechs that use a hardpoint system. I could list many ways MWO has deviated from TT BT cannon. This is not that thread. I think it's a good thing that PGI is basing the MWO on the established mechanics of TT BB. I also think its a good thing that they are not afraid to deviate from said mechanics if they have good reason and can implement a workable system.

**** I will be happy with the game either way, but I think you will see more varied customization and less cookie cutter mods with more engine options. Thank you

Edited by zencynic, 21 June 2012 - 07:06 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Personally, I would like to see the ability to move a 'Mech through each engine rating - e.g. to downgrade a 200 engine to a 195, or a 190, or a 185, and so on (with appropriate losses to speed and maneuverability), or to upgrade a 200 engine to a 205, or a 210, or a 215, and so on (with appropriate gains in speed and maneuverability).

I'd also like to see MASC, TSM, and possibly superchargers (if timeline appropriate) added (with all of their known downsides, as well) as additional mobility enhancement options.

However, I'd also prefer to see tech introduced only when timeline appropriate, so I think that (barring time-skips) Double-XL Fusion Engines (introduced in 3055(?)), Light Fusion Engines (introduced in 3062), and Compact Fusion Engines (introduced in 3068) should not be seen for some time yet (if ever).

Your thoughts?

[zencynic]

Strum Wealh, on 22 June 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

Personally, I would like to see the ability to move a 'Mech through each engine rating - e.g. to downgrade a 200 engine to a 195, or a 190, or a 185, and so on (with appropriate losses to speed and maneuverability), or to upgrade a 200 engine to a 205, or a 210, or a 215, and so on (with appropriate gains in speed and maneuverability).

Introducing the Light fusion engine early is not my 1st choice. I only mentioned it as a fairly easy to implement suggestion if the above was not feasible. My preference would be a system as Strum Wealh stated, with a corresponding increase/decrease in mass as the engine rating is raised or lowered.

[Strum Wealh]

zencynic, on 22 June 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

Introducing the Light fusion engine early is not my 1st choice. I only mentioned it as a fairly easy to implement suggestion if the above was not feasible. My preference would be a system as Strum Wealh stated, with a corresponding increase/decrease in mass as the engine rating is raised or lowered.

So, I was thinking some more about this subject, and something else came to mind:

For a more continuous use of engine ratings, the conversion from the TT rules would be:
MP = (Engine Rating)/('Mech Tonnage)
1.0 MP = able to move 1 hex in one turn turn = able to move 30 meters in 10 seconds = 3 meters per second = 10.8 kph
Thus, walking speed (WS) and running speed (RS) could be determined as

• WS = 10.8*((Engine Rating)/('Mech Tonnage))
  
• RS = 1.5*WS = 16.2*((Engine Rating)/('Mech Tonnage))

Using these, one could compute, with relative ease, the walking and running speeds for any BattleMech with an engine of any allowable rating (10-400, in increments of 5).
MASC, Superchargers, and TSM (if implemented) could then apply have their TT-listed effects (if present and active).

However, MP affects more than just walking and running speeds. More specifically:

• "Each attempt to stand costs 2 MP." (Total Warfare, pg. 50)
  
• "Changing a unit’s facing costs 1 MP per hexside changed, regardless of the terrain type in the hex." (Total Warfare, pg. 50)
  
• "A ’Mech with standard jets, for example, may have as many jets as it does Walking MP." (TechManual, pg. 51)

So, what if MWO were made so that the engine rating directly affected these factors as well?
More specifically:

• What if having a higher-rating engine meant that a fallen 'Mech could regain its feet more quickly than one with a lower-rating engine? Alternatively, what if a 'Mech with a higher engine-rating-to-'Mech-tonnage ratio could regain its feet more quickly than one with a lower ratio?
  
• What if having a higher-rating engine meant that a 'Mech could turn in place more quickly than one with a lower-rating engine? Alternatively, what if a 'Mech with a higher engine-rating-to-'Mech-tonnage ratio could turn in place more quickly than one with a lower ratio?
  
• What if the Engine rating directly determined the number of Jump Jets that could be used effectively/efficiently, where having more than that number of Jump Jets equipped would either have adversely affect jumping performance (can't jump as far or as high, JJ "charge/fuel" bar runs out more quickly) or would not be possible/allowed?

Personally, I think that would make things much more interesting, in a good way.

As an additional effect, that might also make XL Engines ("same rating for half the tonnage" and/or "double the rating for the same tonnage"; more generally, "higher rating for less tonnage") much more attractive even though/if they retain the rather substantial downside of "the 'Mech is destroyed if either side-torso section is lost".

Your thoughts?