50 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

I don't really understand why an 85 ton assault mech like the Stalker (and at least 1 other I suppose, like the Highlander) has such a small engine size limit at 310 for each variant, meaning the fastest you can go is 65 KPH even with speed tweak, meanwhile the Battlemaster is an 85 ton mech as well and it can mount a 400 rated engine if you want it to; that's a really big discrepancy.

EDIT: As multiple people have now pointed out, the engine size limit is based on the mech's stock engine size, although considering how few stock mechs are even remotely good in this game I would perhaps suggest something that relies less on stock builds even if I'm not sure what it would be.

EDIT 2: Here's an idea I posted later in the thread

Pjwned, on 14 January 2015 - 04:58 PM, said:

So, here's an idea I quickly came up with, feel free to show me how it might allow for some particularly dumb builds, although I don't think it would. The current rules would still be kept, but an additional set of rules would be added and whichever resulted in the highest engine cap would be the one that applies for the mech.

Keep in mind this would have more broad (but consistent) changes to engine size limit, affecting mechs like the Blackjack as well.

Current rules:
Maximum-Engine power rating cannot exceed 400 or ~8.5x the 'Mech's tonnage, whichever is lower.

Maximum-Engine power rating with (round up to nearest 5 or 0):
Light 'Mech = 1.4 x Stock-Engine
Medium 'Mech = 1.3 x Stock-Engine
Heavy 'Mech = 1.2 x Stock-Engine
Assault 'Mech = 1.2 x Stock-Engine

Additional rules:

Maximum engine rating for light mechs = 7 x mech tonnage, although even at 8 x mech tonnage this would not affect any current IS light mechs
Maximum engine rating for medium mechs = 6 x mech tonnage
Maximum engine rating for heavy mechs = 5 x mech tonnage
Maximum engine rating for assault mechs = 4 x mech tonnage

For the most part this wouldn't really change much because a lot of mechs have a big enough stock engine that the new rules would have no effect. Some examples of changed mechs though would be the Highlander with an engine cap of 360, the Atlas with an engine cap of 400 aside from just the Boar's Head, Blackjacks aside from the BJ-1X with an engine cap of 270, and of course the Stalker would have an engine cap of 340; most of those aren't even particularly big changes. There might also be some other examples but I can't really think of any right now.

Seems fair to me.

It's not exactly a game breaking issue, but despite some interest in the chassis I don't like piloting mechs that can't possibly move any faster than that, and it kind of prevents me from wanting to use any of the variants at all which is a little bit frustrating.

I don't see how it would hurt to revise the engine size limit on at least the Stalker (if not other mechs as well) so that players have more options for a bigger engine, though I imagine some poster will take my innocuous suggestion as an attempt to destroy what little precious lore is left or some other similar exaggeration.

Edited by Pjwned, 14 January 2015 - 05:57 PM.

[Brody319]

I think it has something to do with lore. which I don't care about. so..give us bigger engines.

[Escef]

Engine size limits are formulated off of the mech's stock engine. The Stalker's stock engine is a 255. The Battlemaster's is a 340. If you want a fast (or at least not slow) 85 ton mech, grab a BLR and deal with the difference in hitboxes and hardpoint placement.

Personally, I really don't like the idea of something with a Stalker's armor and hitboxes running around with an AC20 and a fistful of MLs doing 75 kph (i.e., a Misery with a 360 engine).

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Game balance, the Stalker already received design consideration to balance the smaller engine size. As you already pointed out the Battlemaster is also 85 tons and not restricted, so play it.

[Khobai]

different mechs are different

[El Bandito]

PGI adds around 30-60 rating to max canon rating. It also seems % based, since PGI gives larger canon engines larger bonuses. Locust's tiny engine got 30 rating boost, while Dragon's massive engine got 60 rating boost.

Stalker base has 255 rating, so it is logical that PGI increased the max rating by 55, to 310. Same deal with Catapult. It has 260 rating so PGI added 55 to make it 315. Highlanders have 270 rating, so add 55 to that is 325--which is what we have.

Once Grand Dragon (360) rolls out, we will see 400 XL Heavy mechs, finally.

Edited by El Bandito, 14 January 2015 - 02:12 AM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Well, there are two basic restrictions that were originally used, (that then also have case by case exceptions):


Maximum-Engine power rating cannot exceed 400 or ~8.5x the 'Mech's tonnage, whichever is lower.

Maximum-Engine power rating with (round up to nearest 5 or 0):
Light 'Mech = 1.4 x Stock-Engine
Medium 'Mech = 1.3 x Stock-Engine
Heavy 'Mech = 1.2 x Stock-Engine
Assault 'Mech = 1.2 x Stock-Engine

[Pjwned]

Escef, on 13 January 2015 - 10:38 PM, said:

Engine size limits are formulated off of the mech's stock engine. The Stalker's stock engine is a 255. The Battlemaster's is a 340. If you want a fast (or at least not slow) 85 ton mech, grab a BLR and deal with the difference in hitboxes and hardpoint placement.

Personally, I really don't like the idea of something with a Stalker's armor and hitboxes running around with an AC20 and a fistful of MLs doing 75 kph (i.e., a Misery with a 360 engine).

Considering the Misery is the only one with a ballistic slot its max engine rating could stay low if that was actually a problem.

Khobai, on 13 January 2015 - 10:40 PM, said:

different mechs are different

So different (while being the same total weight) that one can mount a 27.5 (STD 310) ton engine and the other can mount a 59.5 ton (STD 400) engine?

I understand the point, but for being one of the heaviest mechs in the game the Stalker doesn't have room for a very big engine relatively, and the engine limit would not need to be as high as the Battlemaster or anything if it was increased.

Praetor Knight, on 13 January 2015 - 10:51 PM, said:

Well, there are two basic restrictions that were originally used, (that then also have case by case exceptions):


Maximum-Engine power rating cannot exceed 400 or ~8.5x the 'Mech's tonnage, whichever is lower.

Maximum-Engine power rating with (round up to nearest 5 or 0):
Light 'Mech = 1.4 x Stock-Engine
Medium 'Mech = 1.3 x Stock-Engine
Heavy 'Mech = 1.2 x Stock-Engine
Assault 'Mech = 1.2 x Stock-Engine

That's interesting and I suppose for the most part reasonable. Personally I might use a formula that relies less on stock engine size, though I can't really think of anything better, and it's not like that doesn't make any sense.

I guess I would just say to make more of those case by case exceptions and increase the max engine size a bit for big mechs that are particularly slow because of lower engine limits.

I don't have a very strong case here, it's mostly just that I would like to see more bigger mechs capable of moving at 70-75 KPH, which of course still means giving up more tonnage for those speeds.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Pjwned, on 13 January 2015 - 11:30 PM, said:

That's interesting and I suppose for the most part reasonable. Personally I might use a formula that relies less on stock engine size, though I can't really think of anything better, and it's not like that doesn't make any sense.

I guess I would just say to make more of those case by case exceptions and increase the max engine size a bit for big mechs that are particularly slow because of lower engine limits.

I don't have a very strong case here, it's mostly just that I would like to see more bigger mechs capable of moving at 70-75 KPH, which of course still means giving up more tonnage for those speeds.

Well, from what I read those rules were used coming out of Closed Beta.

So I'm sure exceptions can be made to those rules or maybe the devs would go back and simply tweak them directly in the future. They've seemed more or less okay so far though.

I would have considered using the original setup myself:

[Deathlike]

Pjwned, on 13 January 2015 - 10:22 PM, said:

I don't really understand why an 85 ton assault mech like the Stalker (and at least 1 other I suppose, like the Highlander) has such a small engine size limit at 310 for each variant, meaning the fastest you can go is 65 KPH even with speed tweak, meanwhile the Battlemaster is an 85 ton mech as well and it can mount a 400 rated engine if you want it to; that's a really big discrepancy.

It's not exactly a game breaking issue, but despite some interest in the chassis otherwise I don't like piloting mechs that can't possibly move any faster than that, and it kind of prevents me from wanting to use any of the variants at all which is a little bit frustrating.

I don't see how it would hurt to revise the engine size limit on at least the Stalker (if not other mechs as well) so that players have more options for a bigger engine, though I imagine some poster will take my innocuous suggestion as an attempt to destroy what little precious lore is left or some other similar exaggeration.

It's based on some simplified ruleset (maybe Solaris based?) so it is kinda what it is.

For the purposes of the Stalker, this is totally useless, as a STD 300 is more or less you'd want on them anyways. For XL, I guess you "could" have an argument, but then side-coring the trial champion Stalkers is just padding my K-D ratio.

There are some mechs that need that rule expanded a bit... particularly the 45-tonners such as the Vindicator and Blackjack where the "truedubs" aren't in use (250 engines or bigger) which hinder the mech's maximum potential.

Note that there was a period that the non-Raven-3L variants suffered from this initially... previously being capped @ 245 and now being @ 275.

Mechs/variants that probably need it would be the following...
Highlander (all variants) [325, 330 for Heavy Metal] -> 350?
Blackjack (all variants minus 1X) [245] -> 255 (minimum)
Vindicator (all variants minus 1AA) [245, 250 for SIB] -> 255 (minimum)
Awesome (all variants minus 9M/PB) [300] -> 325-350
Kintaro (GB) [290] -> 300
Cataphract (4X) [255] -> 275-280 (minimum) - 300 (max)
Banshee (3S) [345] -> 350

Those are ones I can only come off the top of my head at the moment. I'm sure there's a few more, but that's mostly it.

Edited by Deathlike, 13 January 2015 - 11:43 PM.

[627]

Deathlike, on 13 January 2015 - 11:41 PM, said:

It's based on some simplified ruleset (maybe Solaris based?) so it is kinda what it is.

For the purposes of the Stalker, this is totally useless, as a STD 300 is more or less you'd want on them anyways. For XL, I guess you "could" have an argument, but then side-coring the trial champion Stalkers is just padding my K-D ratio.

There are some mechs that need that rule expanded a bit... particularly the 45-tonners such as the Vindicator and Blackjack where the "truedubs" aren't in use (250 engines or bigger) which hinder the mech's maximum potential.

Note that there was a period that the non-Raven-3L variants suffered from this initially... previously being capped @ 245 and now being @ 275.

Mechs/variants that probably need it would be the following...
Highlander (all variants) [325, 330 for Heavy Metal] -> 350?
Blackjack (all variants minus 1X) [245] -> 255 (minimum)
Vindicator (all variants minus 1AA) [245, 250 for SIB] -> 255 (minimum)
Awesome (all variants minus 9M/PB) [300] -> 325-350
Kintaro (GB) [290] -> 300
Cataphract (4X) [255] -> 275-280 (minimum) - 300 (max)
Banshee (3S) [345] -> 350

Those are ones I can only come off the top of my head at the moment. I'm sure there's a few more, but that's mostly it.

You could add the IV4 Quickdraw. That got a different cap from the rest, just like the Jester and boars head, only in the other direction.

To be true, I like this system, gives some flavor to different mechs and we don't have only "gunbags" as mechs.

Incoming Panthers will be interesting, though.

Edited by 627, 13 January 2015 - 11:58 PM.

[Deathlike]

627, on 13 January 2015 - 11:57 PM, said:

You could add the IV4 Quickdraw. That got a different cap from the rest, just like the Jester and boars head, only in the other direction.

That could probably need a cap increase to 300 or so (maybe 325 max).

It's really hard to run a Quickdraw that runs slower than a 300XL due to its poor scaling (and essentially XL dependent for the most part)

Quote

To be true, I like this system, gives some flavor to different mechs and we don't have only "gunbags" as mechs.

Incoming Panthers will be interesting, though.

Sure.

I think the Panthers need like a 265 cap though... I don't have a problem with a mech being slow necessarily, but 250 on a 35-tonner is like trying to run a Mist Lynx... and you know exactly how it turned out (although, it suffers more from weapons being on the large arms - something a Jenner doesn't have a real problem with).

Edited by Deathlike, 14 January 2015 - 12:10 AM.

[627]

You can make slow lights work... but that's like... hard to figure out. I mastered a Firestarter with an AC10 and some ML, It is doable but it is a totally different playstyle, like kit fox and the like.

And for the IV4, It is hard to fit 2 ballistics in that thing with the low cap, not sure if that one would benefit from a bigger engine, but more options are always good.

[Deathlike]

627, on 14 January 2015 - 12:15 AM, said:

You can make slow lights work... but that's like... hard to figure out. I mastered a Firestarter with an AC10 and some ML, It is doable but it is a totally different playstyle, like kit fox and the like.

I wouldn't run it unless it was "preferable". The Kitfox and Adder are bound by nature, so you have to build to "a strength" (which is firepower in the absence of speed).

Quote

And for the IV4, It is hard to fit 2 ballistics in that thing with the low cap, not sure if that one would benefit from a bigger engine, but more options are always good.

The quirks suggest dual AC5s... which if they were ever quirked to Dragon-1N levels though... well... I don't know what engine the dakka Dragon-1N uses, but it's probably 300XL.

Edited by Deathlike, 14 January 2015 - 12:19 AM.

[HlynkaCG]

Brody319, on 13 January 2015 - 10:30 PM, said:

I think it has something to do with lore. which I don't care about. so..give us bigger engines.

Screw that. 1.2 * stock engine size just like all the other assaults.

Want a fast assault? You can pilot a Banshee or Battlemaster.

Edited by HlynkaCG, 14 January 2015 - 12:49 AM.

[627]

Deathlike, on 14 January 2015 - 12:19 AM, said:

I wouldn't run it unless it was "preferable". The Kitfox and Adder are bound by nature, so you have to build to "a strength" (which is firepower in the absence of speed).



The quirks suggest dual AC5s... which if they were ever quirked to Dragon-1N levels though... well... I don't know what engine the dakka Dragon-1N uses, but it's probably 300XL.

Ok, now you made me start the game to see what my build is

pre quirk with UAC5 IV-FOUR - XL255

What I'd build now:
IV-FOUR XL275

And both are a half ton armor away to feel safe.

You could drop the missiles all together, then a 300 would fit with 240 ammo for the AC5s - but not having the insane quirks like the dragon I wouldn't go out without the backup.

[Deathlike]

627, on 14 January 2015 - 12:38 AM, said:

Ok, now you made me start the game to see what my build is

pre quirk with UAC5 IV-FOUR - XL255

What I'd build now:
IV-FOUR XL275

And both are a half ton armor away to feel safe.

You could drop the missiles all together, then a 300 would fit with 240 ammo for the AC5s - but not having the insane quirks like the dragon I wouldn't go out without the backup.

Well, the builds I tend to see with the dakka Dragon-1N never involved missiles (at least post-quirks), so it's usually an investment towards the engine.

That's kinda what happened to the old Raven-2X builds with the crappy engine cap. Most of the extra tonnage was spent on DHS or upgrading one of the energy weapons to a large laser or better/bigger.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Brody319, on 13 January 2015 - 10:30 PM, said:

I think it has something to do with lore. which I don't care about. so..give us bigger engines.

PGI actually split from lore in regards to engine ratings. In the TT, you determined a mechs engine rating by multiplying its tonnage by its desired walking movement points (which in the TRO were usually converted to kph, like 4 mp becoming 40+ kph, 6 equaling 60+ kph, etc..). Its running (max speed) movement points were its walking mp times 1.5 (can't remember if you round up or down). So in BT engine limits were far stricter in what was available to a mech of a certain tonnage, as an 100 ton mech could choose only 200, 300, or 400(the largest available) engine ratings, it could not choose a 350 rated one like we can in MWO. Also in TT mechs had to put tonnage into gyroscopes, with a gyroscope getting heavier as the mechs engine rating went up (engine rating divided by 100 rounded up).

In MWO we can pick engine ratings that are 'inbetween' what would be possible for a mech of a given tonnage in TT. While this gives more ability to customize a mech, I think that it has also hurt lights and mediums a little as heavy and assault mechs can mount engines that give them a good speed increase while retaining more tonnage then they should (well at least for IS mechs as Clans are engine locked). Perfect example is the King Crab or Atlas. In MWO you can use 325 or 350 rated engines to get a good (for a 100 tonner anyway) agility and speed boost (especially with speed tweak), while in TT the only way to increase a stock AS7-D or KGC-0000's speed would be to go from using a 300 to 400 rated engine, a huge increase in tonnage.

[Pjwned]

Deathlike, on 13 January 2015 - 11:41 PM, said:

For the purposes of the Stalker, this is totally useless, as a STD 300 is more or less you'd want on them anyways. For XL, I guess you "could" have an argument, but then side-coring the trial champion Stalkers is just padding my K-D ratio.

I don't agree, 85 tons is a lot to work with even if you would cram a 325+ standard engine in there.

[Deathlike]

Pjwned, on 14 January 2015 - 03:21 PM, said:

I don't agree, 85 tons is a lot to work with even if you would cram a 325+ standard engine in there.

I guess you could be right (I did recommend increasing the engine cap on the Awesomes). For a Stalker though, the prime real estate comes from the lack of arm actuators (a savings of 4 compared to the Awesome) and most of that is spent on DHS and occasionally forgoing Endo (well, at least for laser heavy builds).

Once you are heading into "Warhawk territory" (340XL), you'd be stretching it.

I don't really consider the Stalker as a speed guy so it's harder to recommend that.

Still, anything above 325 for a Stalker is really wasteful.

Edited by Deathlike, 14 January 2015 - 03:34 PM.