18 replies to this topic

[Last Of The Brunnen-G]

Hi,

I'm a relative new player to mwo, but I was wondering why the speed of a mech is only dependent on the maximum weight 7 / tonnage and the engine size.
For example I have a Hunchback 4P and because of the lack of money I'm currently using the factory engine. This is of course very slow. But I can't use the max tonnage of the mech effectily because of the lack of slots and hardpoints.
It would be cool and would offer more tactical options, if we could bild a mech, that is a little bit under the max tonnage and benefit in more speed from this.
Also the agility and jump height of the mech should depent on the current weight.
If you could add a function, where the mech tonnage is calculated in real time, you could ad a mechanic where a lost arm reduces the weight and influences the speed, agility,.... of the mech.

I would do something like this (with some further thoughts):

(engine size) / (current weight) = maneuver rating (MR)
(engine size) / (current torso weight) = torso rating (TR)
(engine size) / (current arm weight) = arm rating (AR)
leg rating (LR) = different legs may gife some benefits

MR x JumpJet-rating x Multiplicator = jump height
MR x LR x Multiplicator = speed
TR x Multiplicator = Torso twist speed
AR x Multiplicator = arm movement speed

[Khobai]

No.

[Destructicus]

Nox2

Edited by Destructicus, 10 June 2015 - 10:37 AM.

[FupDup]

People would use underweight Atlases as rich man's light mechs.

Steiner Scout Lance suddenly took on a whole new meaning.

[MeiSooHaityu]

No as well from me.

Don't get me wrong, what you said would kind of make sense. After all, if a 55 ton mech only has 35 tons being utilized, wouldn't it move like a 35 tonner with that engine? In reality, maybe (or at least close to that).

It's just not really a good way to do things for the sake of balance. Mediums could move as fast (if not faster than lights, have more armor and structure, anf potentialy more hardpoints. It just creates too many balancing problems and obsoletes too many classes. Think how crazy OP an assault mech could be.

Plus the current system somewhat follows the BT build rules that have been in place for decades.

Overall, it is fine the way it is. Just keep saving up and build the mechs that fully utilizes your crit slots and or tonnage.

P.S. Since you sound like a new player, look around the forums for some build ideas and check out the Smurfy website. Smurfy allows you to test build mechs and get an idea on how much you need to save C-Bill wise before you dedicate and buy weapons and equipment you don't end up needing.

[Nathan Foxbane]

No.

From an engineering stand point you build your tolerances to accommodate max weight. Movement is controlled by the amount of power actuators receive from the engine whose output will not change by making the 'Mech lighter. That means the actuators will only move so fast, no matter the weight. Less weight just means less stress on the actuators and chassis, not the chassis moving faster.
The power part above is what makes MASC risky, it boosts the myomers pushes the actuators beyond normal tolerances. This creates chances for the actuators to burn out and/or seize up, either of which completely immobilizes a joint. When those joints are in a 'Mech's legs, it becomes a turret unless the 'Mech gets knocked over and it uses its arms to drag itself around.

[Last Of The Brunnen-G]

I don't think that this would be hard to balance. You can realise it in a way, where let's say a Atlas with 100t has 55kmph and a light variant with 80t would be at 60 to 65kmph. You could also give the legs a max speed limit regardless of weight, so noone can make crazy builds. I just want a slight speed advantage for the lighter mech build.

Maybe you make a decresed efficience in weight reduction. The nearer you are at your legs max speed limit the fewer benefits you will get, this doesn't have to be linear. With some mathematic formulas you can make a well balanced speed.

This discussion is a little bit like the thread about falling damage. For gameplay reasons, the effects are marginal.

[Lexx]

[Nathan Foxbane]

More speed is what bigger engines are for. I realize as a new player who is strapped for C-bills dealing with a stock engine can suck. I have been there. The 4P as an energy boat has more options about what it can bring compared to some Hunchbacks. I have never really delved into the Hunches myself, but there should be some nice builds you can work towards or maybe even afford deep in the guides & strategies section of the forums in medium battlemechs.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 10 June 2015 - 12:13 PM.

[Last Of The Brunnen-G]

This is not a problem with my hunchback. At the moment I play it as an supporter with erlls. So I don't have to be fast. I only think the idea of a little bit downsizeing your mech for a little bit more speed seems funny. If you have 5t left on your atlas it should be more efficient to put a 5t heavier engine into it. But maybe you already have the biggest engine in your build and want to tune it a little bit.
At my hunchy I choosed to add heatsinks and maximum armor. But who needs this armor on the legs... :-) ? It's just death weight. I would prefer to maximum a mechs capabilities instead of adding dead weight.


@ the NO sayers

Can you please write why this is your opinion, that is not very constructive.

[Dimento Graven]

MasterBurte, on 10 June 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

...

@ the NO sayers

Can you please write why this is your opinion, that is not very constructive.

Check the number of posts from some of these guys. This isn't the first time this idea has come up (nor anywhere the second time), and rehashing the old arguments just gets... 'old'.

[Pjwned]

It does make enough sense, but there are a number of possible concerns as far as balance goes, such as the potential return of the swayback. Additionally, if this were to happen then what about when your components and equipment get shot off in the middle of the match which would mean even less tonnage on your mech?

It would be neat but I don't think it would actually work all that well in practice.

Edited by Pjwned, 10 June 2015 - 01:50 PM.

[Lugin]

Part of why no:

Tech Manual, pg 37 said:

Oversized Engines
A slight digression here: For the first couple of decades in BattleMech design, engineers used oversized fusion engines—power plants that were larger than needed today for a given speed category of ’Mech. It was hoped that this would provide assorted, ill-defined boosts in combat. Unfortunately, these engines simply ran too hot or shut themselves down with overloads. The problem—in part—was that BattleMech systems could only draw so much power at one time.
Ramming more down their throats didn’t help.

Edited by Lugin, 10 June 2015 - 02:28 PM.

[Khobai]

I changed my mind.

I want 50 ton executioners running around at 170kph

[Bulletsponge0]

only advantage I can think it should give is to make jump jets more effective

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 10 June 2015 - 10:49 AM, said:

People would use underweight Atlases as rich man's light mechs.

Steiner Scout Lance suddenly took on a whole new meaning.

I dunno, I kinda want to see that. I bet watching a bunch of Atlases or Dire Wolves running around at 100+ would be hilarious.

[LordMelvin]

I think it would be hilarious to see a max engine atlas with nothing but a machine gun cruising around like a Cicada.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Something very much like that was possible in Starsiege. You could never exceed the specified top speed of a chassis, but under-loading a vehicle or up-rating its engine past the 'optimal' specs for that tonnage resulted in superior acceleration, deceleration, and turning. Engines came with two ratings- one for speed, the other for agility; the ratings corresponded to tonnage*10, so a 35-ton vehicle mounting a 350/350 rated engine would reach its specified top speed and acceleration if it was carrying a full load. Up-rate the engine to a 400 rating, and suddenly you've boosted your agility. Reduce the tonnage of your loadout? Even more so.

I had a 60-tonner running a 500/600 engine at 10 tons underweight that had phenomenal agility; several vehicles could also mount engines rated for vehicles some 20-30 tons heavier than they were. I also ran several underweight/max engine light vehicles that were so nimble I actually had to raise my mouse's DPI when I used them (my arm could not keep up in order to hold my guns on a target while turning- these were 30 and 35 tonners running 10-15 tons underweight, and the 35-tonner in question could be run with a 40-tonner's engine to start with). It wasn't game breaking, because the sacrifices you had to make to achieve that sort of agility meant that you would be on equal footing with someone running a normal config (with one or two exceptions in the topmost performance bracket- there was a 60-tonner that could run a 900/900-rated engine, it was among the best in the game with at least a 700, but suicide to run with a 600 or lower; likewise there was a 48-tonner that pretty much had to be run with a 600, which was the largest it could mount). The stats for 'overclocking' your engine weren't listed, so it was something you just had to get a feel for on each chassis unless you dug around in the game files to find the exact numbers.

Mind you, this was also in a game with energy shields and working repair/reload facilities, so increasing your agility could and did translate to increasing the amount of damage you could effectively tank by dodging shots and recharging your shields while still under fire, or escaping to go heal and reload- so if 'engine overclocking' could be reasonably balanced with those mechanics, then no, it would not be game-breaking in MWO. Not unless PGI was trying to get it completely wrong. Limiting the bonus to a hard cap at 5 or 10 tons underweight would be one way to balance it- another would be making the bonus equal only to whatever you would have gained from up-rating your engine by the same tonnage, making it of limited utility unless your 'Mech was already at its engine cap.

Plus, we already have a good example of what the mechanic as OP described would look like- this concept is what the Man'O'War is built around. It's an 80-tonner that moves and shoots like a medium, but carries assault-class armor. When it goes toe to toe with another assault, it usually loses- but it can be a useful 'Mech to have around if the pilot knows what to do with a fast-moving heap of armor. Yeah, if under-loading worked you could probably crank that sucker up to 120kph or so... but what would be the point? It'd be a troll build. The 'Mechs that would derive the largest benefit would be mediums and lights, many of which actually run close to or at their engine caps (or suffer from locked equipment, like the Clan lights most certainly do).

Hardly a world-shaking issue, in any case. if PGI did it, the novelty would wear off for most pilots pretty quickly, the forum rage would... well, there's forum rage over everything, most of it pointless. Skilled players would gain another way to tweak their performance to fit their playstyle, and min/maxers would spend a few weeks figuring out the new meta- and there would be a new meta pretty much right away, at least for 'Mechs that either normally run at max engine rating or can't change their engines at all. Then... life would go on, the world would keep turning, and the game wouldn't devolve into 2ML Atlaii outracing Locusts. On the other hand, if PGI doesn't bother with anything of the kind... nobody really loses much, do they? It's not as though the game is dying for want of a faster or more agile 'Mech right now.

For my part, although I would personally enjoy the hell out of such a feature, I'd rather see PGI focus on refining and perfecting the gameplay we already have instead of adding new features that will most certainly alter the current state of playbalance (and yes, I think I'd know, having played 'Mech games with and without the feature under discussion). It would be making work to make more work, and they've got more important things to do with their time I think.

Edited by PS WrathOfDeadguy, 10 June 2015 - 06:03 PM.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Yeonne Greene, on 10 June 2015 - 04:43 PM, said:

I dunno, I kinda want to see that. I bet watching a bunch of Atlases or Dire Wolves running around at 100+ would be hilarious.

Without collisions we cannot use them for bumper 'Mechs so what is the point?