38 replies to this topic

[Lordred]

(I am a Inner Sphere pilot, and I FULLY support this idea)

The Inner Sphere has enjoyed too much freedom of choice when it comes to engine selection for our Battlemechs. The time has come to accept that we must have restrictions on our engines.


I propose that we restore the classic whole tonnage value engines as the only options for all Battlemechs.

There are a lot of players who have amassed a huge collection of engine, we cannot just make their engine choices invalid, we will need to issue a full C-Bill refund for the value of all engines in a players inventory, and all invalid engines equipped in Battlemechs, that way the player will have plenty of money to properly re-outfit their Battlemech.


For engine limitations, each Battlemech will have an engine range based off of the variants cannon engine size, it may equip a smaller engine, or go up a single engine rating.

Units able to equip an Electronic Countermeasures Suite would be limited to a max engine rating equal to the variants default engine.

Example:

The Hunchback 4G comes equipped with a 200 rating engine, using these guide lines, it would be able to equip a 100 Series, 150 Series, 200 Series, and 250 Series engine.

ECM Capable:
The Raven 3L comes equipped with a 245 rating engine, using these guide lines, it would be able to equip a 70 Series, 105 Series, 140, Series, 175, Series, 210 Series, and 245 Series engine.


Please consult charts below.

Thank you for reading and commenting.




Light Mechs


Medium Mechs


Heavy Mechs


Assault Mechs

Edited by Lordred, 07 February 2015 - 12:01 PM.

[Lily from animove]

I think i like it, but ohh prepare yourself for the FS9 players incoming

Edited by Lily from animove, 07 February 2015 - 11:04 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Why?

We do not move a matter of hexes per turn in MW:O. The math is simple enough to compute for any engine.

It seems arbitrary and as much as I am a TT purist, this is one mechanic that was necessary in TT, but wholly unnecessary in Mechwarrior.

[TheSilken]

I'm 100% behind this proposal. The variety of engine sizes is ridiculous as it is now and the amount of customization is too great. Set speed brackets would really help out in this game. In addition to this proposal, Battlemechs should not be able to change their chassis type nor change the armor type as that would require literally building a new mech and so is extremely unlikely to occur.

[Wintersdark]

TheSilken, on 07 February 2015 - 12:44 PM, said:

I'm 100% behind this proposal. The variety of engine sizes is ridiculous as it is now and the amount of customization is too great. Set speed brackets would really help out in this game. In addition to this proposal, Battlemechs should not be able to change their chassis type nor change the armor type as that would require literally building a new mech and so is extremely unlikely to occur.

Inability to change chassis and armor type may be "fluffy" but it'd be a balance nightmare. That's something that has to change clan side, not IS side. Locked ES/FF upgrades just make random mechs arbitrarily better, as they're (particularly ES, the hardest to change) a flat out upgrade. With these locked, you'd just dump a massive swaft of IS mechs in the trash bin.

As to engines...

Lordred, why? Just to be more tabletopesque? Note that I'm not saying that its a bad idea and shouldn't happen, but rather asking:

How would your idea improve MWO gameplay? What would it bring to the table?

If your answer is just "Being more like tabletop" I'd argue that that's just not a good enough reason to devote the time to doing it, and the opportunity cost that entails.

I think we'd have been better off with that from the start, with engine choices being a lot simpler and less UI filling... But I don't see it making a noteworthy difference now. Of course, I'm likely missing the real motivation for the change.

[SethAbercromby]

I don't think that this idea is any way through through. Think about what it is that really allows IS 'Mechs to get any edge on the clanners at all. It's the extensive customization options that allow for more fexibility in some regards, while being less flexible in others.

Here's an interesting thought, imagine the game with no Hardpoint restrictions at all, like in actual TT. Let that sink in for a few minutes and imagine how the meta would look like then.

[Lordred]

Hotthedd, on 07 February 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:

Why?

We do not move a matter of hexes per turn in MW:O. The math is simple enough to compute for any engine.

It seems arbitrary and as much as I am a TT purist, this is one mechanic that was necessary in TT, but wholly unnecessary in Mechwarrior.

Yes, you are 100%, the math is very simple. It is already computed.


It is something I would like to see however.

[Burktross]

No I'm good.

(Nerf all the lights)
(nerf all the mediums)
(Maybe nerf some heavies)
(Not nerfing any assaults)

[Lordred]

Wintersdark, on 07 February 2015 - 02:33 PM, said:

How would your idea improve MWO gameplay?

I feel it would Improve MWO by creating a separation in the Light and medium chassis. There are Fast IS lights, and there are slow IS lights, right now every Light in the IS is fast.

In the Medium and Heavy chassis range, where tonnage is still precious, but as you pursue speed, the engines start to get heavy. Players would have to actually make sacrifices. Do you want to sacrifice a bit of firepower for speed? or will you go with the fragility of an XL?

Once we get into the Assault bracket, having those 5 engine rating engines allow for everyone of us to min/max the IS assault down to the 1/2 ton, with out even so much as making any real sacrifice to mobility. Build is 1 ton over weight? drop one engine rating, some times giving up only as much as 1kph and 1 heatsink.

Wintersdark, on 07 February 2015 - 02:33 PM, said:

What would it bring to the table?

It would bring a strong class role to the Medium and Light mechs,

Bringing the overall speed on the light range of mechs will help alive many HSR bugs present in the game, possibly making room for a easier time with MASC implementation later down the road.

Inner sphere players will have freedom of customization they currently enjoy, but will now have a slightly more limited range of engine selection making Speed/Firepower a more meaningful decision.

Wintersdark, on 07 February 2015 - 02:33 PM, said:

If your answer is just "Being more like tabletop" I'd argue that that's just not a good enough reason to devote the time to doing it, and the opportunity cost that entails.

I think we'd have been better off with that from the start, with engine choices being a lot simpler and less UI filling... But I don't see it making a noteworthy difference now. Of course, I'm likely missing the real motivation for the change.

I hope you find this to your satisfaction.




Edit:

Burktross, on 07 February 2015 - 02:44 PM, said:

No I'm good.

(Nerf all the lights)
(nerf all the mediums)
(Maybe nerf some heavies)
(Not nerfing any assaults)

How is this nerfing ALL lights? Clan Light pilots all have to deal with 'slow' mechs? The IS Lights would remain faster then the Clan lights, and faster still then almost everything else.

Edited by Lordred, 07 February 2015 - 02:55 PM.

[Random Carnage]

All sorts of engines can be made to fit all sorts of vehicles. All that is required is enough money (C-bills?) to be thrown at the project. This game is already crippled enough by ******** game mechanics that make no sense outside some PGI board room - don't add more.

Clans should be able to swap engines too. I see Clans as being (relatively) light, fast and packing increased fire power. The IS should counter this by having masses of armor on older, heavier chassis and slower firing but less heat intensive weapons. I also see Clan energy weapons being superior, but IS ballistics being harder hitting. Fits with a theme of high tech vs unrefined brute force.

[Tarl Cabot]

Besides customization, you really have not given a reason why or why not to do it. Provide examples.

Something else to take into consideration. Many of the XL engines are the same weight with the difference being a few points in speed. The decision to equip the faster engine is based on availability of engines, is this an engine I already have in another mech that came with it, or do I fork over a few million c-bills to purchase the other one.

[Lily from animove]

SethAbercromby, on 07 February 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

I don't think that this idea is any way through through. Think about what it is that really allows IS 'Mechs to get any edge on the clanners at all. It's the extensive customization options that allow for more fexibility in some regards, while being less flexible in others.

Here's an interesting thought, imagine the game with no Hardpoint restrictions at all, like in actual TT. Let that sink in for a few minutes and imagine how the meta would look like then.

we would not need any variants anymore, we would probably have overboating of certain weapons. 10lrm 5 direwolf streaming or ehatever weird combos. How many mg's can you squeeze in a light for heatfree shredding?
Also, the more tonnage a mech has, the better basically (as it was in MW 3) So what would make oyu choose a smaller one? only the engine beraking border of hitreg would make worth this.

So it may be necessary to limit any mechs at a max of 125 kph maybe to prevent "engine cheating" When the game engine breaks and creates those weird behaving mechs where is the sense/benefit of MWO in that?

Edited by Lily from animove, 07 February 2015 - 02:59 PM.

[Lordred]

Tarl Cabot, on 07 February 2015 - 02:55 PM, said:

Besides customization, you really have not given a reason why or why not to do it. Provide examples.

Something else to take into consideration. Many of the XL engines are the same weight with the difference being a few points in speed. The decision to equip the faster engine is based on availability of engines, is this an engine I already have in another mech that came with it, or do I fork over a few million c-bills to purchase the other one.

Many of the XL engine are the same weight, so Why would you chose one that was a few KPH slower?

The choice of engine should have a dramatic impact on your available speed/tonnage.

Edited by Lordred, 07 February 2015 - 03:06 PM.

[Aethon]

Hotthedd, on 07 February 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:

Why?

We do not move a matter of hexes per turn in MW:O. The math is simple enough to compute for any engine.

It seems arbitrary and as much as I am a TT purist, this is one mechanic that was necessary in TT, but wholly unnecessary in Mechwarrior.

This is exactly what I was going to say. I am one hell of a Battletech lore purist, but some things have to give in a game like this, and I think the ability to put a couple extra tonnes into our powerplant to squeeze an extra few KPH out of our favourite mechs is just plain cool. This is hot rod stuff, and who does not like that? (this coming from someone whose Clan paints their mechs like hot rods, but...still...)

[Wintersdark]

Lordred, on 07 February 2015 - 03:05 PM, said:

Many of the XL engine are the same weight, so Why would you chose one that was a few KPH slower?

The choice of engine should have a dramatic impact on your available speed/tonnage.

This is a good pro for it. But, this is also one that fits under the heading of "should have been like that from the beginning" but doesn't really impact the game much now. While you can squeeze an extra ton or even just a half ton by spending cbills and down/upgrading your engine a notch, that's not really important in the grand scheme of things. It'd have been better if we had far fewer ratings if for no other reason than to simplify the UI and remove all those "these two ratings weight the same, so why use the slower one?" engines.

But... That's not really bringing much to the table to be worth a major change.

So, ultimately, you're just looking to lower the upper engine caps on lights?

Lordred, on 07 February 2015 - 02:52 PM, said:

I feel it would Improve MWO by creating a separation in the Light and medium chassis. There are Fast IS lights, and there are slow IS lights, right now every Light in the IS is fast.

I'd argue there's currently a VAST difference between the Light and Medium chassis in game. A really, really huge difference.

Quote

In the Medium and Heavy chassis range, where tonnage is still precious, but as you pursue speed, the engines start to get heavy. Players would have to actually make sacrifices. Do you want to sacrifice a bit of firepower for speed? or will you go with the fragility of an XL?

This is exactly as it is now, as engines at a given rating still weigh the same amount, right? So you're just removing the "in between" engines. Still sacrificing tonnage for speed, as we do now, just with fewer choices inbetween (as I noted above, not a bad thing but not really important either).

Quote

Once we get into the Assault bracket, having those 5 engine rating engines allow for everyone of us to min/max the IS assault down to the 1/2 ton, with out even so much as making any real sacrifice to mobility. Build is 1 ton over weight? drop one engine rating, some times giving up only as much as 1kph and 1 heatsink.

Having 100pt rating gaps would certainly limit options in 100t Assault builds. You'd basically only ever see 300 rated engines run as 400 rated engines cost/benefit ratio is terrible; they're just bad, and 200 rated engines on a 100t mech are far, far too slow. So, Atlases and King Crabs would see a pretty substantial nerf at being effectively locked to 300 engines.


I guess I'm just not seeing the ability to granularly change engine size as being that much of a problem? You still make the same choices of speed vs. firepower you do with chunkier changes, you just have fewer options.


Basically, I like it more for the smaller mechs and much less for the bigger ones, as there are ever fewer actually usable choices as mech tonnage increases.

[TheSilken]

Yep. Honestly to get a massive mech moving faster to any significant degree it should require a fairly heavier engine in order to do so. Look at tanks, if I plop an engine in there that has 100 more horsepower your looking at pretty negligible speed increase because the increased weight compared to power increase cancels out the majority of it. But if I plop one in that has 300 more horsepower it's gonna make a decent performance increase, not large mind you, but decent.

[Wintersdark]

Aethon, on 07 February 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

This is exactly what I was going to say. I am one hell of a Battletech lore purist, but some things have to give in a game like this, and I think the ability to put a couple extra tonnes into our powerplant to squeeze an extra few KPH out of our favourite mechs is just plain cool. This is hot rod stuff, and who does not like that? (this coming from someone whose Clan paints their mechs like hot rods, but...still...)

This is kinda where I am on the idea. I can see the value in having fewer ratings to chose from, but the tonnage-multiple system (to my view, at least) arbitrarily limits builds but not in a way that really gives anything back.

Not that I always prefer ever more open customization: I find the limits clan mechs have makes optimizing Clan mechs very interesting.

I wouldn't object to fewer ratings, but particularly after 50t mechs with this, when you're looking at 50t jumps, you're enormously limiting players' ability to "tune" their mech to their play. And unlike clans, without having changable omnipods, you're options very rapidly decrease.

You'd end up with far fewer builds overall, because it'd be very easy to arrive at the optimal builds for a given engine rating, and there would be precious few worthwhile engine ratings to use. I think players would lose out here overall, and the game wouldn't be significantly better for the change.


Better, if one feels IS fast lights are too fast, is to simply adjust max engine caps across the board and leave the system as it stands.

TheSilken, on 07 February 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

Yep. Honestly to get a massive mech moving faster to any significant degree it should require a fairly heavier engine in order to do so. Look at tanks, if I plop an engine in there that has 100 more horsepower your looking at pretty negligible speed increase because the increased weight compared to power increase cancels out the majority of it. But if I plop one in that has 300 more horsepower it's gonna make a decent performance increase, not large mind you, but decent.

That's exactly how the system is right now, though. Minor changes have minor impacts on speed, and minor savings/costs in tonnage. You want a big change, you make a big change.

[Lordred]

Wintersdark, on 07 February 2015 - 03:32 PM, said:

Better, if one feels IS fast lights are too fast, is to simply adjust max engine caps across the board and leave the system as it stands.

To focus on this, for only a moment. Would you consider changing the Engine CAPs (not removal of all between engines) to what is above outlined?

(merely curious)

[Wintersdark]

Lordred, on 07 February 2015 - 03:39 PM, said:

To focus on this, for only a moment. Would you consider changing the Engine CAPs (not removal of all between engines) to what is above outlined?

(merely curious)

Yup.

Mind you, I'm not on the "Fast lights are OP" bandwagon, because seriously, when consistently <10% of the playerbase is running them, they can't be that OP.

However, I do think we'd be better served by reducing max speed, particularly at the high end, particularly if that opened the doors for MASC - something I'd love to see in game.

To be honest, though, it's not something I care a lot about. I never run mechs at max speed, even lights.

[Nightshade24]

I am behind this idea.

Even though I own every light mech in game, I feel it's stupid to have each light mech the same in every way besides JJ, ECM, and hardpoints.

(excluding the raven 2X and 4X)

Adding diversity to the engine sizes of variants and mechs for the lights would make things more interesting. Like what they did with the commando and raven.