35 replies to this topic

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Generally speaking, I am not. Yes extra speed and weapons are nice. Yes I could use some extra armor or ammo. But... doubling the number of ways to die (since legs don't instally fall of like in TT) is a deal breaker for me.

Now... for fast scouting or mechs outfitted to be harrasers I think the trade off is worth it since you're goal is to avoid getting shot at in the first place and the extra speed and weapons make the job easier.

What about y'all?

[Rychard Starheart]

depends on roll, load out and mech. If im mounting a Gauss Rifle or a ton of ammo, hell no.

[trycksh0t]

It really depends on the situation. If I'm building a 'Mech intended for direct combat? God no, it just isn't worth the risk.

For scouting or fire support, where I shouldn't be taking that much damage, absolutely. The benefits far outweigh the risk in those situations, as more speed and armor is a godsend for a scout, while the extra weapons and ammo are well worth it on a support 'Mech.

[Wildcat]

Load up my Jenner with extra Speed and MGs, then time to cap some Knees ! well... worked in MW1 lol

[Chunkymonkey]

Only for speed since armor is pointless since you can be cored and your weapons will be destroyed if your cored.

[Squigles]

Depends on the mech, generally speaking I'll almost always give a stock light mech an XL engine, if for no other reason then the stock configurations are so lightly armored, you have better durability sticking in the XL and converting the freed up weight to extra armor. I mean really, a stock Jenner is only running something like 53% of it's maximum chassis weight armor coverage.

[DocBach]

Nope - IS XL engines are death traps, and expensive ones at that.

[Ogryn]

I normally look at the role of the mech and what I'd want to do with it. Most often, I upgrade to XL for scouts, and certain medium harassers. Long range bombardment mechs as well. Oddly enough, I found mechs like the Catpult work very well with an XL in them, as you can pack in more launchers and ammo.

My Atlas on the other hand? He's a zombie, and will NOT be getting an XL. Brawlers and slower mechs tend to benefit more from an upgrade to double heatsinks and weapons rather than XL engines in my opinion. Doubling the ways to get killed by losing either side torso is not something a brute combat mech should do.

[autogyro]

Depends on the circumstances and the Mech itself. But generally, yes.

[StingerPryde]

A is one ... nope.

[Elizander]

For long range support mechs or lightweight mechs that would die either way, I think this is fine. If your team plays well, they would benefit much more from a long-range mech's increased firepower instead of giving it a little more armor or playing it safer with less engine critical chances. If I'm going to play a front-line tank I'd prefer not to have XL for obvious reasons.

Costs might also factor into this. I am hoping cheaper parts will mean cheaper repairs so I can walk in with non-ER, non-XL, non-Endo/Fero and get more positive gains each match.

[Aldinvor]

It's no fun without risk ^^

Centurion - D is what I'm after as soon as I can have it:
CN9-D - The D variant of the Centurion is the first of many upgrades using Star League technology. The chassis was re-engineered to use Endo Steel construction techniques. Next the power plant was changed from the standard engine to an extralight engine. In the process the maximum speed was increased to 97.2 km/h. Finally, the weapons were upgraded. The Autocannon/10 was upgraded to an LB-X Autocannon/10 and an Artemis IV fire control system was added to the LRM launcher. The two Medium Lasers were retained.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

For some designs of lights and mediums, the harassers and scout hunters then maybe. For heavies and assaults it would be rare unless using it as a fire support mech to get bigger launchers/more ammo. It also depends if your running in a unit with proper support or as a loner in a PUG. It's just another trade off to consider. Cost both to buy and maintain will also be a factor.

[Future Perfect]

Isn't the XL engine the most beneficial to light mechs?

They have to rely on speed and mobility to survive so why not enhance that?

[Skadi]

MOAR GUNS

[Zarkus]

If IS XL engines are adapted to the game the way they are in tabletop, then losing a side torso (relatively easily accomplished) means 3 critical hits to the engine, which means game over. No thanks.

[Remarius]

There are a few roles and configurations I'll happily use them in. Suspect more than in TT tbh.

[Roguewolf]

This absolutly depends on the platform your rolling with. In an Assault mech, you would almost certainly want the durability factor. Heavies and Striker style Mediums though, its all about fire and Maneuver. In this case you will never stand toe to toe by design, and since you are moving around and dodging fire you can lose some of the durability in your internal components. I tend to favor top sized mediums to mid range Heavies, so I would take the lighter engine in a heartbeat.

[Risen]

It all depends on the mech and your own way to play, I would not use XL engines since they are too expensive and make most mechs just terribly sqishy in regards of endurance on the field.

Heavy and assault mechs go better with double heat sinks and endosteel imo

If you go by the variants that came up before and during the clan invasion there are two different ones:

One are rebuilds of Starleague variants
Second are half tinkered refits of (luckily) still working standart designs from the factories.
With a reminder on lostech the engineers probably used whatever they got their hands on and seemed to be "new"
Thats why not all 3050+ IS mechs have double heat sinks.

[Redemptor]

Need moar heatsinks!