50 replies to this topic

[Roadkill]

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.

Because 120 kph Hunchbacks.

The engine size limits are based off of the stock engine in order to help preserve the character of the Mech. The stock Hunchback comes with a standard 200 which means it moves at 64 kph. It's meant to be a bruiser (for a medium), not a sprinter. 4Ps running around at 120kph slaughtering innocent assault Mechs caused too much butthurt.

The ratio is staggered by weight class because, well, far too many IS lights have small(ish) base engines. Slow lights are dead lights, so they need to be reasonably fast just to survive. But giving that same multiplier to Assaults would mean that they can (almost) all carry a 400 so there would effectively be no limit on Assaults. Queue the staggered multipliers.

[Pjwned]

Roadkill, on 14 January 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

Because 120 kph Hunchbacks.

The engine size limits are based off of the stock engine in order to help preserve the character of the Mech. The stock Hunchback comes with a standard 200 which means it moves at 64 kph. It's meant to be a bruiser (for a medium), not a sprinter. 4Ps running around at 120kph slaughtering innocent assault Mechs caused too much butthurt.

The ratio is staggered by weight class because, well, far too many IS lights have small(ish) base engines. Slow lights are dead lights, so they need to be reasonably fast just to survive. But giving that same multiplier to Assaults would mean that they can (almost) all carry a 400 so there would effectively be no limit on Assaults. Queue the staggered multipliers.

Well, I'm not asking for 120 KPH Hunchbacks or for every assault mech to be able to mount a 400 rated engine, so...

[Roadkill]

Pjwned, on 14 January 2015 - 04:17 PM, said:

Well, I'm not asking for 120 KPH Hunchbacks or for every assault mech to be able to mount a 400 rated engine, so...

Was just explaining where the limits came from.

[Pjwned]

Deathlike, on 14 January 2015 - 03:34 PM, said:

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.

I suppose the limit could just be set at 325, but then that makes it kind of seem like the issue is "I want to be able to fit in 1 more DHS to my engine in a Stalker" when it's not, although that's obviously a decent bonus; also I still don't think it's necessarily a waste to go beyond 325 since it might allow for some shorter range builds to be viable.

Roadkill, on 14 January 2015 - 04:19 PM, said:

Was just explaining where the limits came from.

I guess that's fair enough, it's just that your examples are only what happens when there's no limit on engine size, but I'm only suggesting that the engine cap could maybe be raised a bit for big mechs that have a particularly low limit.

Edited by Pjwned, 14 January 2015 - 04:39 PM.

[terrycloth]

So the Urbanmech is going to have a max 85 engine cap?

[Pjwned]

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:

Quote

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.

Edited by Pjwned, 14 January 2015 - 05:04 PM.

[Deathlike]

Pjwned, on 14 January 2015 - 04:37 PM, said:

I suppose the limit could just be set at 325, but then that makes it kind of seem like the issue is "I want to be able to fit in 1 more DHS to my engine in a Stalker" when it's not, although that's obviously a decent bonus; also I still don't think it's necessarily a waste to go beyond 325 since it might allow for some shorter range builds to be viable.

Well, I primarily aim for the "25 engines" increments for DHS, but I have a very different rule of thumb.

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:


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.

I think that has the most conflicts with something like upcoming Panther, which is problematic.

The easier way to go is really simple.

You still use the older/current system, and adjust the outliers as necessary (mostly the slower mechs), based on need.

For instance, it is not really necessary to argue for 300 engine caps for Firestarters or Ravens even though the Jenner has that particular cap number. It's "fast enough".

When the rules was applied to the SLOWER 50 tonners like the Hunchback and Centurion, they eventually got their engine cap moved up from 260 (based on the math) to 275. This was important, especially to get that extra engine cap, but moreso to make them go almost 100kph.

PGI also did the same for Awesomes... which I believe were capped at 290, but eventually got their engine cap increased to 300 (although, it's still rather limited).

The non-Raven-3Ls got their engine cap of 245 increased to 275 (kinda wished it was 280, but whatever)... which does help them out a bit due to the need for speed as a light.

My "rule of thumb" generally is that the engine cap limit for "slower mechs" (assuming they are considered "slow" in MWO terms) is that it should be as high BUT not equal to the faster mechs of the same tonnage.

For instance, increasing the Stalker engine cap to 340 is inappropriate because of the Battlemaster and Warhawk. 335 would be the ultimate max, regardless (325 is a sweet spot IMO).

Increasing the Highlander's engine cap to 360 would be inappropriate... if the Cyclops is to be part of the next IS mech pack (it has a 360 engine stock IIRC). That is why I suggest 350 or so.

Some mechs need more of a bump than others, but generally ones that I have listed are generally affected.

While I would not ask for another small buff (like the Blackjack-1X and the Vindicator-1AA) from a 295 engine to 300, it would be nice, but not entirely necessary.

The list that I had put together had most considerations based on common loadouts with respect to a mech's overall viability on the whole... no need to cripple things needlessly by the "base rules" the engine cap relies upon.

[Ultimax]

As an avid Stalker fan, this never bothered me.

You can't really go too much higher beyond 300 STD or you start to lose firepower, you don't want to run XL because that's awful on Stalkers.

Stalkers are generally much better mechs than Battle Masters, it's good that BMs have this as an advantage/unique point.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

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

Spoiler

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:


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.

Well, what can be done is adjust the values, but if the idea is to use the lower of the values than those would reduce max engine sizes.

I might have missed one, but here is a table finding the multipliers for engines:

Edit: Cleaned up the table and added in more

Edited by Praetor Knight, 14 January 2015 - 06:27 PM.

[Pjwned]

Deathlike, on 14 January 2015 - 05:21 PM, said:

Well, I primarily aim for the "25 engines" increments for DHS, but I have a very different rule of thumb.

Well that's generally what I do too, but every once in a while it's nice to have an engine in between.

Quote

I think that has the most conflicts with something like upcoming Panther, which is problematic.

As far as I understand, some people are also worried about its low speed cap making it not very good, which is a problem for IS lights unless they're relegated to sniping or something, which doesn't exactly sound like a great chassis.

Quote

The easier way to go is really simple.

You still use the older/current system, and adjust the outliers as necessary (mostly the slower mechs), based on need.

For instance, it is not really necessary to argue for 300 engine caps for Firestarters or Ravens even though the Jenner has that particular cap number. It's "fast enough".

When the rules was applied to the SLOWER 50 tonners like the Hunchback and Centurion, they eventually got their engine cap moved up from 260 (based on the math) to 275. This was important, especially to get that extra engine cap, but moreso to make them go almost 100kph.

PGI also did the same for Awesomes... which I believe were capped at 290, but eventually got their engine cap increased to 300 (although, it's still rather limited).

The non-Raven-3Ls got their engine cap of 245 increased to 275 (kinda wished it was 280, but whatever)... which does help them out a bit due to the need for speed as a light.

Well, there is some value in applying a consistent set of rules that would have a similar effect instead of just changing mechs on a case by case basis, as long as the rules make sense anyways and it seems to make enough sense to me.

Quote

My "rule of thumb" generally is that the engine cap limit for "slower mechs" (assuming they are considered "slow" in MWO terms) is that it should be as high BUT not equal to the faster mechs of the same tonnage.

For instance, increasing the Stalker engine cap to 340 is inappropriate because of the Battlemaster and Warhawk. 335 would be the ultimate max, regardless (325 is a sweet spot IMO).

Increasing the Highlander's engine cap to 360 would be inappropriate... if the Cyclops is to be part of the next IS mech pack (it has a 360 engine stock IIRC). That is why I suggest 350 or so.

This is only a "problem" in that the Stalker's biggest possible engine would be equal to the Battlemaster's stock engine and the Highlander's biggest possible engine would be slightly higher than the Cyclops' stock engine. My response to this is...so what, as long as the "faster" mechs in question easily have access to even bigger engines? I just don't really see how it matters that a mech with its biggest possible engine (read: not stock any longer) can, in terms of speed, be equal or slightly exceed another mech of the same size with its stock build, since the "faster" mech can easily put in an even bigger engine than the "slower" mech can even allow.

Maybe if stock mechs actually mattered in this game I would care more, but they're essentially worthless in nearly every case, so I kind of don't care. That's not to say that I totally hate the current rule as it is (i.e engine cap being based on stock build) but I just kind of stop caring when the complaint is that a mech of the same size can be equal to or slightly exceed another mech's stock build when said other mech still has more options.

As for the Warhawk, I'm not really considering clan mechs for this topic due to significantly different construction rules, and my above response still kind of applies here.

Quote

Some mechs need more of a bump than others, but generally ones that I have listed are generally affected.

While I would not ask for another small buff (like the Blackjack-1X and the Vindicator-1AA) from a 295 engine to 300, it would be nice, but not entirely necessary.

The list that I had put together had most considerations based on common loadouts with respect to a mech's overall viability on the whole... no need to cripple things needlessly by the "base rules" the engine cap relies upon.

Doesn't really sound like I disagree here.

Edited by Pjwned, 14 January 2015 - 06:37 PM.

[verybad]

The Stalker is SUPPOSED to be slow/ Each mech has it's plusses and minuses, the Stalker is still good while being slow, so I don't think there's a truly good argument to make them faster.

They don't need help.

[Pjwned]

Praetor Knight, on 14 January 2015 - 05:53 PM, said:

Well, what can be done is adjust the values, but if the idea is to use the lower of the values than those would reduce max engine sizes.

I might have missed one, but here is a table finding the multipliers for engines:

Edit: Cleaned up the table and added in more

Spoiler

I believe you're a bit mistaken because I did say "and whichever resulted in the highest engine cap would be the one that applies for the mech."

verybad, on 14 January 2015 - 06:39 PM, said:

The Stalker is SUPPOSED to be slow/ Each mech has it's plusses and minuses, the Stalker is still good while being slow, so I don't think there's a truly good argument to make them faster.

They don't need help.

It still wouldn't be a particularly fast mech, and especially relative to another mech of the same size with its biggest engine, so unless the Stalker supposed to move slow as molasses even with the biggest possible engine it could maybe be changed.

More speed of course means less tonnage for other equipment as well, so it's more about having more options rather than straight up improving the mech.

Edited by Pjwned, 14 January 2015 - 07:15 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

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

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).

That would be glorious but totally broken.

Stalkers are a fine Chassis and I've never really felt hard done by on engine size. I usually only mount 300 anyway. I'd rather have more guns/better heat than go slightly faster.

Edited by Troutmonkey, 14 January 2015 - 06:52 PM.

[Escef]

Troutmonkey, on 14 January 2015 - 06:51 PM, said:

That would be glorious but totally broken.

Stalkers are a fine Chassis and I've never really felt hard done by on engine size. I usually only mount 300 anyway. I'd rather have more guns/better heat than go slightly faster.

Just testing working it out on Smurfy, with the engine cap raised, you could do 4xML, AC20 w/4 tons ammo, endo steel, 519/526 ferro armor, a 360 standard engine (75.5 kph with speed tweak), and 14 double sinks (43% heat efficiency according to Smurfy). That's just freakin' scary.

[Ultimax]

Escef, on 14 January 2015 - 07:04 PM, said:

Just testing working it out on Smurfy, with the engine cap raised, you could do 4xML, AC20 w/4 tons ammo, endo steel, 519/526 ferro armor, a 360 standard engine (75.5 kph with speed tweak), and 14 double sinks (43% heat efficiency according to Smurfy). That's just freakin' scary.

That sounds oddly familiar.


Mine jumps.

[Lyoto Machida]

Escef, on 14 January 2015 - 07:04 PM, said:

Just testing working it out on Smurfy, with the engine cap raised, you could do 4xML, AC20 w/4 tons ammo, endo steel, 519/526 ferro armor, a 360 standard engine (75.5 kph with speed tweak), and 14 double sinks (43% heat efficiency according to Smurfy). That's just freakin' scary.

Don't forget about the better torso twist speed to go with the higher top speed.

PGI should really separate torso twist speed from engine speed...would add to the individuality of each chassis/variant.

[Escef]

Ultimatum X, on 14 January 2015 - 07:13 PM, said:

That sounds oddly familiar.


Mine jumps.

Yours also has less armor and lacks the Stalker's nearly unmatched hitboxes.

[HlynkaCG]

I think it should be

Pjwned, on 14 January 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:

/length

To be honest I'd rather see a normalized system where min and max engine are simply stock engine +/- mech's tonnage with some mechs (specifically lights) maybe getting a chassis specific "speed tweak" or "enlarged engine bay" quirk.

I feel that the current emphasis dilutes the individuality of each chassis. For instance, ideally the choice between running a Fire-starter or a Jenner would be a trade off between weapons and speed. As it stands the Fire-starter is just better, it gets more hard points and better hit-boxes for a measly 5 points of engine cap. Fire-starters should not be keeping up with Jenners.

ETA: Some worked examples...

Stalker 170 - 340 (255 Stock engine +/- 85) max speed after speed tweek 71.3
Battlemaster 255 - 400 (340 Stock engine +/- 85, 400 max) max speed after speed tweek 84

Firestarter 175 - 245 (210 Stock engine +/- 35) max speed after speed tweek 121.7
Jenner 210 - 280 (245 Stock engine +/- 35) max speed after speed tweek 142.6

Edited by HlynkaCG, 15 January 2015 - 02:56 AM.

[Cyborne Elemental]

Upping the cap on Stalker's engines would just lead to more XL sillyness IMO.

There just aren't that many builds that you would want to go any higher than a STD 325 anyway.

[El Bandito]

Mister D, on 15 January 2015 - 04:55 AM, said:

Upping the cap on Stalker's engines would just lead to more XL sillyness IMO.

There just aren't that many builds that you would want to go any higher than a STD 325 anyway.

And the whole problem lies in the fact that players cannot have Std 325 (three slot free DHS) on the Stalker, no matter how badly they want one.

For example, I have 4 tons left over for this Stalker build which I can use for 325 Std engine + one more DHS.

STK-5M

Edited by El Bandito, 15 January 2015 - 05:12 AM.