124 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Nightmare1, on 08 March 2016 - 04:52 PM, said:

Or let engines behave like engines and give the Timby negative quirks "if we feel like it."

So add additional bandaids to a system just because people want mechs with larger engines to be better.......wat

[Nightmare1]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 March 2016 - 05:12 PM, said:

So add additional bandaids to a system just because people want mechs with larger engines to be better.......wat

How is that any different from what you were suggesting? You were advocating that all engines have the same power draw capacities and that we could quirk underperforming Mechs. That's the same idea, but in reverse of what I suggested; a band-aid of your own design.

To me, it makes more sense to have engines that behave like engines, and then to negatively quirk the half-dozen Mechs that may be OP, than it does to prevent engines from behaving in the manner that they do in RL, and then providing a myriad of positive quirks for the dozens of underperforming Mechs that will result.

Your own band-aid would require much quirking for the Energy boat Mechs, like the HBK-4P, that don't have any option except to run energy weapons. How is this not a band-aid? We are suggesting the mirror image of each other; the same concepts, but applied in reverse. If one is a band-aid, then so too must the other be, or neither of them are.

Frankly, I don't see my system as a band-aid. I see it as the more reasonable alternative that requires the least amount of quirking. Yours is less realistic and would require more quirking since the number of underperforming chassis in the game is greater than the number of overperforming chassis.

[Trauglodyte]

Fup, you're thinking about this in the wrong way. Let's say, for example, that power limit is equal to engine rating/10. A Firestarter with a max engine (295) would have an energy bank of 29.5. The Locust, w/ a max engine (190) would have an energy bank of 19. From the jump, you'd be expected to say that is complete garbage and you'd be right. NOW, what if the formula, again all of this is completely BS on my part, was actually engine rating divided by weight divided by 5? By doing that, the Firestarter has an energy level of 16 while the Locust has an energy level of 19. Again, all of this is complete garbage but I did it so that you could see that, just because you've got a much bigger engine, it doesn't equate to you having a bigger pool of energy from which to draw for your weapons, sensors, life support, etc. For something REALLY weird, let's do this:

Engine rating / mech weight / untweaked speed * 500

This would give the Firestarter 31 units of power vs. the Locust with 31 units of power. Coincidentally, a non-Boar's Head Atlas with a max engine would have *drum roll* 31 units of power. Now, the caveat to this formula is that going with a smaller engine results in a slower speed which ends up with the formula returning to 31 units of power. So, PGI would have to do something with that by possibly adding in a weighting property to make sure that pulling one level would result in a change here or there. At any rate, you get what I'm doing. The engine size doesn't matter because the end result is the same. Going slower or faster, having something with a much bigger engine because of a design thing doesn't matter. The end result is the same every time.

[Nightmare1]

Trauglodyte, on 08 March 2016 - 06:57 PM, said:

Fup, you're thinking about this in the wrong way. Let's say, for example, that power limit is equal to engine rating/10. A Firestarter with a max engine (295) would have an energy bank of 29.5. The Locust, w/ a max engine (190) would have an energy bank of 19. From the jump, you'd be expected to say that is complete garbage and you'd be right. NOW, what if the formula, again all of this is completely BS on my part, was actually engine rating divided by weight divided by 5? By doing that, the Firestarter has an energy level of 16 while the Locust has an energy level of 19. Again, all of this is complete garbage but I did it so that you could see that, just because you've got a much bigger engine, it doesn't equate to you having a bigger pool of energy from which to draw for your weapons, sensors, life support, etc. For something REALLY weird, let's do this:

Engine rating / mech weight / untweaked speed * 500

This would give the Firestarter 31 units of power vs. the Locust with 31 units of power. Coincidentally, a non-Boar's Head Atlas with a max engine would have *drum roll* 31 units of power. Now, the caveat to this formula is that going with a smaller engine results in a slower speed which ends up with the formula returning to 31 units of power. So, PGI would have to do something with that by possibly adding in a weighting property to make sure that pulling one level would result in a change here or there. At any rate, you get what I'm doing. The engine size doesn't matter because the end result is the same. Going slower or faster, having something with a much bigger engine because of a design thing doesn't matter. The end result is the same every time.

Well said. I don't mind Mechs having similar or even identical power draws as long as it's reasonable. Expecting an engine to have a higher capacity because it's bigger and more powerful is reasonable. Expecting that same engine to perform different in a 20 ton Mech versus a 35 ton Mech is reasonable. By that line of thinking, having a Locust and Firestarter, each with the same engine rating and same power draw for weapons, is reasonable.

I could go for a system like this.

[Trauglodyte]

Like I said, I'm simply spit balling but it has some very basic merits to it. Knowing PGI, it'll be some Einsteinian math that simultaneously explains things like gravity waves, dark matter, etc.

[Nightmare1]

Trauglodyte, on 08 March 2016 - 07:16 PM, said:

Like I said, I'm simply spit balling but it has some very basic merits to it. Knowing PGI, it'll be some Einsteinian math that simultaneously explains things like gravity waves, dark matter, etc.

While failing at half of it?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Nightmare1, on 08 March 2016 - 05:47 PM, said:

How is that any different from what you were suggesting?

The difference is with disconnecting power draw from engine size you don't have to do even more work with balance and keeping quirks in line to match. You are basically adding complexity to actually balancing (and adding chances for screw ups with regards to quirks) just so you can say engine affect power draw. Disconnecting them means no quirks have to be added to bandaid the change and nothing else needs to be thought about with regards to mechs with crap engine caps.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Trauglodyte, on 08 March 2016 - 06:57 PM, said:

Engine rating / mech weight / untweaked speed * 500

And the problem with this like you keep ignoring is that doing this would screw over mechs like the Adder which would suffer even more despite being a mech that is supposed to use MORE firepower than most lights, meaning you have to double up on bandaids it needs to be good.

[Nightmare1]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 March 2016 - 07:24 PM, said:

The difference is with disconnecting power draw from engine size you don't have to do even more work with balance and keeping quirks in line to match.

No, not really. There are very few Mechs that would need negative quirking. By contrast, your proposal would require positive quirking for a good many Mechs. That's more work right there and greater opportunities for imbalance.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 March 2016 - 07:24 PM, said:

You are basically adding complexity to actually balancing (and adding chances for screw ups with regards to quirks) just so you can say engine affect power draw. Disconnecting them means no quirks have to be added to bandaid the change and nothing else needs to be thought about with regards to mechs with crap engine caps.

Not any more than your notion. What do you mean, "No quirks?" You just said a couple posts ago that you could see positive quirks being added for underperformers! I quoted you, remember? Dude, pick a side of the fence and stay on it; quit trying to straddle it. All you'll get is a sore crotch.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Nightmare1, on 08 March 2016 - 08:03 PM, said:

No, not really. There are very few Mechs that would need negative quirking. By contrast, your proposal would require positive quirking for a good many Mechs.

It wouldn't require any quirks, that's the point, all the best mechs run large engines outside maybe the Stalker.

Nightmare1, on 08 March 2016 - 08:03 PM, said:

Not any more than your notion. What do you mean, "No quirks?" You just said a couple posts ago that you could see positive quirks being added for underperformers!

My notion means no extra quirks, yours does (either negs on good mechs, or doubling up on bad ones).

[Nightmare1]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 March 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

It wouldn't require any quirks, that's the point, all the best mechs run large engines outside maybe the Stalker.


My notion means no extra quirks, yours does (either negs on good mechs, or doubling up on bad ones).

No, you would still need to quirk the underperforming Mechs. If an Awesome and a King Crab both have the same power draw, then the Awesome will need positive quirks to balance it against the KGC under your system. The KGC tends to make use of smaller engines to fit all its ballistics while the Awesome needs larger engines for maneuverability. Your system penalizes the Awesome. That's what I'm getting at. You claim my system rewards larger engines. Well, yes it does, but in a realistic fashion. A handful of overperforming Mechs could receive a small negative quirk to balance them under my system.

Your idea would penalize every Mech that takes a large engine, which hits the smaller Mechs most hard. My Centurions all have the biggest engines I can cram into them; why should they be penalized because your Crab likes a smaller one? Under your system, the laser vomit Crab can get away with a small engine and have as high a damage output, or higher, than my Centurion. I am penalized for using a larger engine in my CN9, but I don't have the luxury of choosing a smaller engine for my CN9. I might need positive quirking to compensate for the Power Draw on my CN9.

Another, better example is the difference between the Grasshopper and the Cataphract. The Cataphract typically runs a smaller engine, which means that it gains benefits from your idea. However, the Grasshopper, which needs the larger engine, is penalized. The Grasshopper is not a high performance Mech; why should it not have an advantage with its larger engine? It's a solid energy Mech; you're stripping it of an important feature that it would vitally require. The only logical thing to do then, is to give it positive quirking to make up for its Power Draw deficit under your plan.

Your plan is still going to require quirk band-aids no matter how much you want to deny it. You can bury your head in the sand, but the fact is, you're the opposite side of the coin from me. The only difference, is that my system is based on reality, which helps with immersion, and it also would require fewer Mechs to be quirked. That means less "band-aids."

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Nightmare1, on 08 March 2016 - 08:26 PM, said:

No, you would still need to quirk the underperforming Mechs. If an Awesome and a King Crab both have the same power draw, then the Awesome will need positive quirks to balance it against the KGC under your system. The KGC tends to make use of smaller engines to fit all its ballistics while the Awesome needs larger engines for maneuverability.

You are still assuming that ballistics will have minimal power draw, and if they are doing things right to limit alphas, it won't matter about whether it is ballistic, missiles, or energy, if it has alpha potential it will have significant power draw. Otherwise this would just needlessly punish energy boats further without addressing the main alpha boats of before the rebalance and the poptart era that mixed ballistics and energy together to get huge alphas.

Nightmare1, on 08 March 2016 - 08:26 PM, said:

Another, better example is the difference between the Grasshopper and the Cataphract. The Cataphract typically runs a smaller engine, which means that it gains benefits from your idea. However, the Grasshopper, which needs the larger engine, is penalized. The Grasshopper is not a high performance Mech

You mean the Grasshopper which is currently much better than the Cataphract? How dare they try and balance them to equalize things out!!!

Nightmare1, on 08 March 2016 - 08:26 PM, said:

My Centurions all have the biggest engines I can cram into them; why should they be penalized because your Crab likes a smaller one?

Why do your Crabs not have bigger engines than the Centurion is the better question. Crabs have the higher engine cap and can squeeze an XL 280 with 3 LPLs, what more do you need?

[cazidin]

Perhaps I was unclear. POWER DRAW IS NOT LIKELY TO BE BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE ENGINE EQUIPPED IN YOUR MECH. IT WILL BE A STATIC VALUE SHARED BY ALL MECHS. IT WILL NOT HAVE AN UNNECESSARY CALCULATION THAT WOULD MAKE EINSTEIN PROUD.

If it is, PGI will change that within a few days because I foresee a lot of very legitimate complaints about it for Clan Omnimechs that have a locked in small engine, Assaults that simply can't have a large engine but can equip large weapons, etc.

How it'll work is either an energy bar with each weapon draining X from it, like Masc, or an internal system that determines that A weapon will use B power and you cannot go beyond that. No heat penalty, you just can't fire more than C amount of weapons.

[Widowmaker1981]

cazidin, on 08 March 2016 - 05:11 PM, said:

Let's just agree that if PGI ties power draw to engine size there will be rather significant problems. It should be a universal system applied evenly to every mech.

well, no not really.

Lets say that the power draw system has a limit to the DPS you can put out, which i assume it will being as it has both a capacity and a recharge rate - if you can use the capacity faster than it can recharge, you are DPS limited by the system.

Now, lets say that a heavy mech is limited by the system - i.e. it can reach its max possible DPS output. In that situation, there is no point EVER taking a mech heavier than that one, since you will be becoming slower and less agile for no offensive gain.

See the problem? If the system limits heavies DPS, then assaults become pointless (because their only reason to exist is to put out more dps than is possible with a heavy). If it limits mediums, then heavies also become pointless for the same reasons. But if the system doesnt place limits on heavy mechs, its pointless.

Maybe you can say that they will give low power draw to ACs, so that assaults have a purpose (because due to the weight of ACs assaults will always be the go to for ballistic boating). But in that world, what happens to assaults that dont come with B hardpoints?

I think any power draw system has to either scale with engine size, or more ideally mech weight (because engine cap would screw some mechs otherwise). An Assault HAS to be able to put more fire downrange than a heavy, or it is purposeless.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 09 March 2016 - 08:02 AM.

[cazidin]

Widowmaker1981, on 09 March 2016 - 08:01 AM, said:

well, no not really.

Lets say that the power draw system has a limit to the DPS you can put out, which i assume it will being as it has both a capacity and a recharge rate - if you can use the capacity faster than it can recharge, you are DPS limited by the system.

Now, lets say that a heavy mech is limited by the system - i.e. it can reach its max possible DPS output. In that situation, there is no point EVER taking a mech heavier than that one, since you will be becoming slower and less agile for no offensive gain.

See the problem? If the system limits heavies DPS, then assaults become pointless (because their only reason to exist is to put out more dps than is possible with a heavy). If it limits mediums, then heavies also become pointless for the same reasons. But if the system doesnt place limits on heavy mechs, its pointless.

Maybe you can say that they will give low power draw to ACs, so that assaults have a purpose (because due to the weight of ACs assaults will always be the go to for ballistic boating). But in that world, what happens to assaults that dont come with B hardpoints?

I think any power draw system has to either scale with engine size, or more ideally mech weight (because engine cap would screw some mechs otherwise). An Assault HAS to be able to put more fire downrange than a heavy, or it is purposeless.

Since scaling with engine size would be terrible, I'd agree with it going up with mech weight. If it's like Masc, as you and I suggest, where there's X power limit and Y time to recharge, then it can also increase that power limit or recharge time every 15-20 tons.

[Nightmare1]

Widowmaker1981, on 09 March 2016 - 08:01 AM, said:

well, no not really.

Lets say that the power draw system has a limit to the DPS you can put out, which i assume it will being as it has both a capacity and a recharge rate - if you can use the capacity faster than it can recharge, you are DPS limited by the system.

Now, lets say that a heavy mech is limited by the system - i.e. it can reach its max possible DPS output. In that situation, there is no point EVER taking a mech heavier than that one, since you will be becoming slower and less agile for no offensive gain.

See the problem? If the system limits heavies DPS, then assaults become pointless (because their only reason to exist is to put out more dps than is possible with a heavy). If it limits mediums, then heavies also become pointless for the same reasons. But if the system doesnt place limits on heavy mechs, its pointless.

Maybe you can say that they will give low power draw to ACs, so that assaults have a purpose (because due to the weight of ACs assaults will always be the go to for ballistic boating). But in that world, what happens to assaults that dont come with B hardpoints?

I think any power draw system has to either scale with engine size, or more ideally mech weight (because engine cap would screw some mechs otherwise). An Assault HAS to be able to put more fire downrange than a heavy, or it is purposeless.

This guy gets it.

+1

[Nightmare1]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 March 2016 - 07:34 AM, said:

You are still assuming that ballistics will have minimal power draw, and if they are doing things right to limit alphas, it won't matter about whether it is ballistic, missiles, or energy, if it has alpha potential it will have significant power draw. Otherwise this would just needlessly punish energy boats further without addressing the main alpha boats of before the rebalance and the poptart era that mixed ballistics and energy together to get huge alphas.

Dude, it's about half-stupid to give ballistics or missiles a power draw. They don't draw power from the reactor, hence no power draw!!!

Why is it so hard for you to wrap your mind around that? You're essentially advocating that we adopt a system that offends reality on two different fronts; one by pretending that weapons that do not rely on a reactor must draw stupid amounts of power from said reactor, and two by pretending that engine size cannot affect the power draw capacity of a Mech.

That's mind-numbingly stupid, in my opinion, especially considering the amount of quirking that will still need to be done to balance Mechs.

What about my HBK-4G? Your system will still punish it harshly for running an AC/20 and three MLs. Why should it be punished so? It's not a meta Mech. It's not an OP Mech that's abused. What about the Zeus, Awesome, or especially the Atlas? Your system hammers all three of them. Suddenly, the Atlas, the Mech that's supposed to be the most feared in the game, becomes defanged because it can't fire any of its weapons. The King Crab dakka boat, which relies heavily on DPS, becomes neutered under your system. Why even bother using Assaults? Your system favors Light Mechs more than any other weight class.

That's the issue with your idea; it doesn't just limit alpha strikes, it also destroys DPS boats and penalizes players who like to operate bigger Mechs. It flies in the face of reality, breaking immersion and offending common sense. It would be much better to have power draw behave like Mech speed, scaling with the engine. This auto balances all the Mechs, requiring only a handful of negative quirks for overperformers instead of a bevy of positive quirks for the suddenly broken myriad of underperformers created by your system.

The other ridiculous thing, is that your system does nothing to counter the laser vomit since it essentially keeps all weapons at the same place. You're literally asking to sub out Ghost Heat for a nearly identical mechanic; fire too many weapons and your Mech loses too much power and shuts down or can't move. That's the same thing as heat. Shoot, you may as well just ask PGI to give you a Ghost Heat meter and more severe Ghost Heat penalties and call it good.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 March 2016 - 07:34 AM, said:

You mean the Grasshopper which is currently much better than the Cataphract? How dare they try and balance them to equalize things out!!!

In your opinion. I've seen Cataphracts put out much scarier match scores than Grasshoppers. Both are underperformers though compared to meta Mechs. You're missing the point yet again.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 March 2016 - 07:34 AM, said:

Why do your Crabs not have bigger engines than the Centurion is the better question. Crabs have the higher engine cap and can squeeze an XL 280 with 3 LPLs, what more do you need?

Good question, I don't run Crabs and can only report what I see in the field.

3 LPL on a Medium is stupidly hot though kiddo; nobody wants to run that in their right mind. I tried it on a HBK-4P and quickly abandoned it; it's no good unless all you do is Pug and get lucky. In team matches, it's a death sentence to generate that much heat. I'm guessing, based on your posts, that all you do is pug solo. That explains a lot, actually.

[Widowmaker1981]

Nightmare1, on 09 March 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

3 LPL on a Medium is stupidly hot though kiddo; nobody wants to run that in their right mind. I tried it on a HBK-4P and quickly abandoned it; it's no good unless all you do is Pug and get lucky. In team matches, it's a death sentence to generate that much heat. I'm guessing, based on your posts, that all you do is pug solo. That explains a lot, actually.

Well, i wouldnt go so far as to say that. The SHD-2K (or Sparky, actually) wtih triple blue wubs is a BEAST. I will agree its hard to work on 50 tonners or less though.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 09 March 2016 - 09:27 AM.

[Nightmare1]

Widowmaker1981, on 09 March 2016 - 09:27 AM, said:

Well, i wouldnt go so far as to say that. The SHD-2K (or Sparky, actually) wtih triple blue wubs is a BEAST. I will agree its hard to work on 50 tonners or less though.

I could see it being swung on a 55 tonner, but I wouldn't want to try it; I still consider it to be too hot.

It's just about futile on a 50 tonner though.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Nightmare1, on 09 March 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

Dude, it's about half-stupid to give ballistics or missiles a power draw. They don't draw power from the reactor, hence no power draw!!!

Then you don't understand the whole reason this was added. It is a GAMEPLAY mechanic, it has nothing to do with reality. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your mind around that.

Nightmare1, on 09 March 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

What about my HBK-4G? Your system will still punish it harshly for running an AC/20 and three MLs. Why should it be punished so? It's not a meta Mech. It's not an OP Mech that's abused. What about the Zeus, Awesome, or especially the Atlas? Your system hammers all three of them. Suddenly, the Atlas, the Mech that's supposed to be the most feared in the game, becomes defanged because it can't fire any of its weapons. The King Crab dakka boat, which relies heavily on DPS, becomes neutered under your system. Why even bother using Assaults? Your system favors Light Mechs more than any other weight class.

Atlas is actually meta, and without affecting ballistics, you would end up with no more energy boats, Dakka Maulers are already really strong compared to laser boat assaults like Stalkers, Battlemasters, and Banshees, so why should those get punished more and every assault be forced to rely on ballistics to do, anything really?

Nightmare1, on 09 March 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

That's the issue with your idea; it doesn't just limit alpha strikes, it also destroys DPS boats and penalizes players who like to operate bigger Mechs.

That's kind of the point, because with alphas limited to 30 points, DPS mechs will rule the day, they already have a place in the meta even with large alphas, removing alphas just makes DPS the ONLY way to go. Kinda stupid to remove options and depth isn't it?

Nightmare1, on 09 March 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

The other ridiculous thing, is that your system does nothing to counter the laser vomit since it essentially keeps all weapons at the same place.

Except laser vomit relies heavily on getting around ghost heat, without that workaround, it won't be near as solid. That said, laser vomit isn't everything right now.

Nightmare1, on 09 March 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

In your opinion. I've seen Cataphracts put out much scarier match scores than Grasshoppers. Both are underperformers though compared to meta Mechs. You're missing the point yet again.

You do realize the Grasshopper is pretty meta, it may not be top tier like the BK, but is a solid choice for when you can't take a BK.

Nightmare1, on 09 March 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

Good question, I don't run Crabs and can only report what I see in the field.

3 LPL on a Medium is stupidly hot though kiddo; nobody wants to run that in their right mind. I tried it on a HBK-4P and quickly abandoned it;

No, its not that hot compared to other meta mechs, run the meta Black Knight with 3 LPL/5 ML and then come and tell me the 3 LPL Crab is hot.