88 replies to this topic

[NonCondensable]

My question for you is: why not?

[Tacwarrior]

Because - in order to get an Atlas to 64 k/h you will need an XL engine. So now your Atlas dies if you lose left or right torso, plus it is still bigger, where as you can put an XL engine in a Hunchback and make it got 80+ k/h. While being much smaller and harder to hit - and probably turning better - and much faster now too.

[Riffleman]

Tacwarrior, on 09 July 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

Because - in order to get an Atlas to 64 k/h you will need an XL engine. So now your Atlas dies if you lose left or right torso, plus it is still bigger, where as you can put an XL engine in a Hunchback and make it got 80+ k/h. While being much smaller and harder to hit - and probably turning better - and much faster now too.

Where did you get the 65kph limit? On the mech builder I use I can get it to 75 with a regular engine, sure that engine is like 45+ tons, but its not xl. Mabye I am looking at one that uses tech past 3049?

[Tacwarrior]

Riffleman, on 09 July 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

Where did you get the 65kph limit? On the mech builder I use I can get it to 75 with a regular engine, sure that engine is like 45+ tons, but its not xl. Mabye I am looking at one that uses tech past 3049?

max speed with a 400 engine is 64k/h for an atlas

10.8 x 1.5 x 400 / 100 = 64.8 k/h

whatever you are using is wrong and stupid

[Riffleman]

Tacwarrior, on 09 July 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

max speed with a 400 engine is 64k/h for an atlas

10.8 x 1.5 x 400 / 100 = 64.8 k/h

whatever you are using is wrong and stupid

Even if that's so that is still equal to the base speed of a centruion and hunchback, and they dont have nearly as much tonnage to give up to devote to a larger engine.

[Ubertron X]

Atlas with upgraded 400 engine

Internal Structure: 10 Tons
Cockpit: 3 Tons
Gyro: 4 Tons
Armor: 19 Tons
Engine: 52,5 Tons

Weapons load left: 11,5 Tons (AC/20 with 2 Tons of ammo weights 16 Tons)

Hunchback

Internal Structure: 5 Tons
Cockpit: 3 Tons
Gyro: 2 Tons
Armor: 10 Tons
Engine: 8,5 Tons

Weapons load left: 21,5 Tons

That's why.

[employee24601]

Der Zivilist, on 08 July 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

Because the Atlas will be more expensive to maintain.

Theoretically. We don't know details about the economy yet.

Which is partly why I chose it as my Founder's Mech actually. The 25% C-Bill boost will hopefully offset the increased cost of repair if not contributing to increased profit.

[BigJim]

Re; Speed.

While it might be possible by TT rules, I would expect that in game an Atlas still can never be as fast as a Hunchie, I just think it would be a (minor) foolish move by devs, in fact I expect speed and manoeuvrability to be a major balancing factor that the devs use to ensure that lighter chassis do get used, and it wouldn't surprise me if these deviate from TT by quite a margin for some mechs.

(turning circle, torso-twist speed, basic rotational speed, how long it takes to engage/disengage forward & reverse gear, etc.. all that stuff)

In addition, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the theoretical top speeds are limited too, so that an Atlas (to use the example in this thread) simply can't be made to go as fast as in TT, despite adding more engines.

All this is supposition o/c, but it's the way I would be thinking were I a Dev.

[Tokra]

Riffleman, on 08 July 2012 - 11:23 PM, said:

I understand that the stock hunchback isnt top of the line technology as far as medium mechs go, but my question is this.

If you can take an atlas, strip down the weapons to the same loadout as a comparable medium, and use the left over tonnage to reach speeds very comperable to said medium, 65 kph in the case of the stock hunchback, quite easy with alot of tonnage left over in an atlas, why would you use the hunchback.

I understand things like being lower profile or not precieved as a high threat target mabye buying you some time from being shot at, but the balance at least for me on the tabletop came at both sides having the same tonnage limits. Since there will be no such restrictions why not just use the atlas? Way more armor and I doubt even a terrible loss with little or no money made is going to be a good enough reason to deter you.

To get an Atlas to the same speed as the Hunchback, you will have to upgrade the reactor and gyro. This will cost (from TT) 33,5 more tons. Just to increase the speed. These 33,5t have to come from other equipment. Like weapons and armor. So in the end you will have a mech with the same speed as the hunchback, but eighter with less weapons or with less armor (as the Hunchback, not as the orignal Atlas).
To get the same loadout on an Atlas as on a Hunchback, you need 101t. So you have to drop the armor by one ton, or one less heatsink, or drop a med laser (all based on the tabletop).
Sure, you have more internal armor with the atlas. But this is not worth is. The weight loss you get from speeding up heavy and assault mechs cost you way to much tons.

All this dont even include the not known infos that are in MWO. Like acceleration and rotation speed. And the bigger size of the Atlas as well. Or even the repair cost, that will, most likly, be higher on the Altas.

Riffleman, on 09 July 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

Where did you get the 65kph limit? On the mech builder I use I can get it to 75 with a regular engine, sure that engine is like 45+ tons, but its not xl. Mabye I am looking at one that uses tech past 3049?

To get an Atlas at a speed of 65 kph you need a 400 engine size (100t * 4 walkspeed). This will weight 52,5t.
I dont know where you get the 75 kph from. This would be a speed of 7 on tabletop. And this is not possible (4/6 is equal to 65 kph; 5/8 is equal to 86 kph). And you cant get a 100t mech to a speed of 5/8 (86kph), because the biggest fusion engine is 400.
So unless MWO has different rules for the engine weight or speed calculation (it might be, i dont deny it), its not possible. Or the fusion engine would weight over 100t. And this makes it pointless.

[Riffleman]

Ubertron X, on 09 July 2012 - 01:18 AM, said:

Atlas with upgraded 400 engine

Internal Structure: 10 Tons
Cockpit: 3 Tons
Gyro: 4 Tons
Armor: 19 Tons
Engine: 52,5 Tons

Weapons load left: 11,5 Tons (AC/20 with 2 Tons of ammo weights 16 Tons)

Hunchback

Internal Structure: 5 Tons
Cockpit: 3 Tons
Gyro: 2 Tons
Armor: 10 Tons
Engine: 8,5 Tons

Weapons load left: 21,5 Tons

That's why.

I must be using a different program. My engine to reach 65 kph only came to 45 tons, but also I wasent going to use the AC/20. I was just saying its possible to get comperable medium and heavy mech weapon loadouts while still getting medium base speed and having assault armor. How did I come up 7.5 tons different? With my planned loadout of 2 lrm 15s, 4 medium lasers and an srm 6 i was still under tonnage.

[Bodha]

I think you should think back to TT mentality

lights = scouts
mediums = basic workhorses
heavies = the armored brawlers, big support etc.
assaults = slow big siege weapons, a few exceptions such as the charger

So if you want a nimbler hunter-killer go hunchback. You want a slow siege weapon go atlas. Both are good at those roles, but both have weaknesses

[Riffleman]

Tokra, on 09 July 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

To get an Atlas to the same speed as the Hunchback, you will have to upgrade the reactor and gyro. This will cost (from TT) 33,5 more tons. Just to increase the speed. These 33,5t have to come from other equipment. Like weapons and armor. So in the end you will have a mech with the same speed as the hunchback, but eighter with less weapons or with less armor (as the Hunchback, not as the orignal Atlas).
To get the same loadout on an Atlas as on a Hunchback, you need 101t. So you have to drop the armor by one ton, or one less heatsink, or drop a med laser (all based on the tabletop).
Sure, you have more internal armor with the atlas. But this is not worth is. The weight loss you get from speeding up heavy and assault mechs cost you way to much tons.

All this dont even include the not known infos that are in MWO. Like acceleration and rotation speed. And the bigger size of the Atlas as well. Or even the repair cost, that will, most likly, be higher on the Altas.




To get an Atlas at a speed of 65 kph you need a 400 engine size (100t * 4 walkspeed). This will weight 52,5t.
I dont know where you get the 75 kph from. This would be a speed of 7 on tabletop. And this is not possible (4/6 is equal to 65 kph; 5/8 is equal to 86 kph). And you cant get a 100t mech to a speed of 5/8 (86kph), because the biggest fusion engine is 400.
So unless MWO has different rules for the engine weight or speed calculation (it might be, i dont deny it), its not possible. Or the fusion engine would weight over 100t. And this makes it pointless.

Mind linking the mech builder program your using, it feels like mine is using the wrong tonnage to figure out engine speed and weight.

[Tokra]

Riffleman, on 09 July 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

I must be using a different program. My engine to reach 65 kph only came to 45 tons, but also I wasent going to use the AC/20. I was just saying its possible to get comperable medium and heavy mech weapon loadouts while still getting medium base speed and having assault armor. How did I come up 7.5 tons different? With my planned loadout of 2 lrm 15s, 4 medium lasers and an srm 6 i was still under tonnage.

First question would be, what program did you use for it?
One for a PC game, or one for the TT one? The TT should never give you such data.

[famguy1]

BigJim, on 09 July 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

Re; Speed.

While it might be possible by TT rules, I would expect that in game an Atlas still can never be as fast as a Hunchie, I just think it would be a (minor) foolish move by devs, in fact I expect speed and manoeuvrability to be a major balancing factor that the devs use to ensure that lighter chassis do get used, and it wouldn't surprise me if these deviate from TT by quite a margin for some mechs.

(turning circle, torso-twist speed, basic rotational speed, how long it takes to engage/disengage forward & reverse gear, etc.. all that stuff)

In addition, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the theoretical top speeds are limited too, so that an Atlas (to use the example in this thread) simply can't be made to go as fast as in TT, despite adding more engines.

All this is supposition o/c, but it's the way I would be thinking were I a Dev.

Even if devs wont make speed limits for mechs, there are still some reasons why not to use Hunchback over Atlas:
1: As said many times before, Atlas is bigger target and it's easier to hit.
2: If there will be a price for maintaining mechs, then maintaining Atlas is going to be more expensive than Hunchback (obviously).
3: A team with such Atlas is going to be at a disadvantage, because it won't do as much as damage as it would normally do and other team's assaultmech will overpower it.

Edited by famguy1, 09 July 2012 - 01:52 AM.

[Tezkat]

Yeah... the math really doesn't support this idea.

MWO apparently has backwards compatibility with tabletop mech construction rules as one of its design goals. If you're optimizing mechs for tabletop, there are sweet spots for maximizing free tonnage at various speeds. The one for running at 65kph is a fair bit higher than the Hunchback's 50 tons... but it's also a good deal lower than the Atlas's 100.

Bringing an Atlas up to 4/6 (65kph) requires a full 400 engine rating (the max possible on a standard BattleMech), which is extremely heavy and, realistically, only viable if you go XL. With a standard fusion engine, you don't really gain any extra tonnage for armour or weapons. Indeed, you actually lose usable tonnage unless you also go with endo-steel internals--the engine alone literally weighs more than an entire Hunchback.

So then it ultimately becomes an "XL engine on an assault/brawler" question... Most tabletop vets will suggest that this is a Bad Idea. And lack of crit space will prevent you from fielding an AC/20 in any event.

Furthermore, as has been mentioned a few times, previous MechWarrior games have tied mobility characteristics to the chassis rather than engine size, with assaults always being less maneuverable than mediums. We don't know if MWO will continue that trend, though it seems a reasonable assumption. So a 65kph Atlas may not actually gain the full mobility of a 65kph Hunchback.

Costs can't be completely ignored, either. Obviously, we non-beta folk don't have access to the current ingame pricing schemes, let alone income rates for matches, and all of those are likely to see changes between now and release anyway. But as of the mechlab demo video, they were using tabletop prices for everything, so we can use those to establish relative values.

The tabletop cost of a Hunchback HBK-4G is around 3.5 million C-Bills. An Atlas AS7-D weighs in at a little under 10 million C-Bills. The cost of an Atlas-sized 65kph XL engine would be almost 11 million--more than the cost of the entire original assault mech. (The cost of its base engine is only 2 million.) If maintenance costs are proportional to purchase prices, this thing will cost waaaaaay more to build and repair than our inexpensive Hunchback.

And then there's the question of how the matchmaking system balances teams. Tonnage? Battle Value? Cost? By many of these metrics, your "Hunchback-equivalent" Atlas is likely to sport a somewhat overinflated value for what you actually bring to the field, proportionally reducing the strength of the rest of your team.

Edited by Tezkat, 09 July 2012 - 01:56 AM.

[Riffleman]

Well guess Ill have to wait for the 7th of august, or sooner if im lucky, to see the full values and mech brainstorm. Of course if I do that I cant come back here for build advice anymore! Stupid NDA. Hope they drop it pre aug 7th, I have a feeling im going to be unlucky in the old beta raffle.

[Boldar]

But I think a 100 ton mech with 2 LRM 15s and 5 short range weapons is still crap...

[Riffleman]

Boldar, on 09 July 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

But I think a 100 ton mech with 2 LRM 15s and 5 short range weapons is still crap...

How would it be much different than the archer, 2 lrm 15s and 4 medium lasers total, and its still pretty effective at 70 or 75 tons whichever it is.

[Benjamin Emory]

Riffleman, on 09 July 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

.....you have a medium armament boat that dosent overheat often, is as fast as a medium, but armored like the heaviest assault. There are alot of things you can do with this kind of thinking.....

Fail argument. An assualt mech will rarely be as fast as a medium, with the exception being those few mediums that max out at 64km/hr, if your not aware, this is due to maximum engine ratings (this was mentioned in the past, 400 being the highest)

An 80ton mech can pull 86km (being the smallest of the assualt mechs), but sacrifices everything else, for the sake of speed. I.e. 2.5tons of weapon space using the Charger as an example.

When and if XL engines and other technology advances become available, this will start to change but you have to question, why you would not use a lighter mech, capable of similar speeds, better armament and utility.

[Cid]

@Riffleman:

i am using the solaris skunk werks tool for mechbuilding:
http://www.solarissk....com/downloads/

just take the "SSW_0.6.81.zip", and under recordsheets also download "SSW Master.zip" for a database of mechs and variants.

oh, and you have a PM