124 replies to this topic

[Nightmare1]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 March 2016 - 10:59 AM, said:

So you mean any mech stuck with a small engine through cap or by virtue of being an omnimech? Sounds to me like it would be easier for PGI to simply not give even more buffs to large engine which are already running rampant in the meta.

If you put a bigger engine in your car, would you then add a limiter so that it matches any random vehicle on the road that has a smaller engine? Of course not.

Large engines, by virtue of their higher speeds alone, are important. The trade-off is that they cost an arm and a leg and are require large amounts of tonnage. It's a good balance right now. Frankly, I don't see any rationale reason not to let large engines act like large engines.

FupDup, on 07 March 2016 - 11:01 AM, said:

Having to give out additional quirks to every mech with a low engine cap offends my logic.

And really, PGI's job of quirking still hasn't helped mechs like the Mist Lynx or Commando, and this would only add fuel to the fire.

Your problem is that you expect all Mechs to be equally effective once they're quirked. That's not the case because it's impossible. Every game ever created always has certain tech/gear that's better than all the other tech/gear, as well as certain tech/gear that's inferior to all the rest of the tech/gear. Trying to make every single system, Mech, tech, etc. equally balanced against every single other one is impossible. It's better to shoot for as close to perfection as you can get, and then accept that a Commando will never be able to beat a Firestarter or Arctic Cheetah on equal footing. Getting upset over that, and then asking that reality be suspended in an effort to make the Commando competitive, is ridiculous.

jweltsch, on 07 March 2016 - 11:03 AM, said:

Yeah, no. Power draw besides very, very, very minimal amount would be outright stupid for acs and missles. The limiting factor for these systems is TONNAGE and AMMUNITION, both of which are severly limiting, and the second compounds the first. The biggest reason why the laser meta is so strong is the fact that it has nowhere near the drawbacks that acs have when compared against one another. The heat factor is just simply not enough of a draw back to counter the massive weight and ammunition constraints on acs. Not to mention lasers hit instantly, are hitscan (as in much easier to use), and have unlimited usage on the map.

If we put power draw on acs and missles, we will STILL be in the same place with our meta as we have done NOTHING to address the main reasons why lasers are meta. A lowered heat cap and increased armor would do more to phase out the alpha meta than powerdraw could hope to.

This guy gets it.

[Cy Mitchell]

I do not care how they go about fixing this. I just want there to be a significant downside for abusing the Alpha strike. I would love to see high heat cause greatly reduced speed and torso twist well before shutdown. If a modified heat system or power draw achieves this then I am all for it.

As Russ said, Alpha strikes should be a rarity on the battlefield. They should not be the norm.

It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Nightmare1, on 07 March 2016 - 11:07 AM, said:

Frankly, I don't see any rationale reason not to let large engines act like large engines.

Because they are already the reason that many mechs suffer. Vindicators, Adders, Kit Foxes, Highlanders, etc. Now you want to make the separation further and force them to get more quirks to try and be on par with mechs that can actually mount large engines. Basically make balance further complicated and with more band-aids.

I don't care about how it works in reality.

Nightmare1, on 07 March 2016 - 11:07 AM, said:

Trying to make every single system, Mech, tech, etc. equally balanced against every single other one is impossible.

Well no s***. No one said it was nor was under the impression it was possible. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to close the gap between balance or stop doing balance period. That would the equivalent of telling the founding fathers that true freedom is impossible, might as well not even bother with trying to make a system where you have more freedom.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 March 2016 - 11:16 AM.

[Nightmare1]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 March 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

Because they are already the reason that many mechs suffer. Vindicators, Adders, Kit Foxes, Highlanders, etc. Now you want to make the separation further and force them to get more quirks to try and be on par with mechs that can actually mount large engines. Basically make balance further complicated and with more band-aids.

I don't care about how it works in reality.

Shoot man, I run HBKs and such more than I run the meta Mechs. I'm okay with most of my Mechs being classed as under-performers. I like the more realistic feel that the power draw system would give especially for the larger engines. There really should be better buffs for large engines given the ridiculously high amounts of tonnage they require.

Also consider Mechs like the HBK-4P, Crabs, Zeuses, Awesomes, etc. that are forced to rely on large engines with lots of energy weapons. Asking them to share the same power levels as a Locust or Kit Fox will just hamstring them in the same way that you complain that that Highlander and Vindicator would. Should your under-performing Mechs receive preferential treatment over mine?

I say, let the big engines have higher power draw levels. It doesn't necessarily have to be by a lot either, but there should be an incrementally larger amount for each step up in engine rating. Shoot, the difference between the smallest engine and the largest doesn't even have to be all that big. I'm just saying that, simplistically and rationally speaking, larger engines should have larger capacities.

My HBK-4P is a great Mech, as is my HBK-4G. Right now, they feel pretty well balanced against each other. If Power Draw is implemented the way that you want it, my HBK-4G would dominate my 4P and then the 4P would need to be requirked. However, if Power Draw is implemented the way I want it, my 4P and 4G will remain essentially equal. That's not such a bad thing, now is it?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 March 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

Well no s***. No one said it was nor was under the impression it was possible. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to close the gap between balance or stop doing balance period. That would the equivalent of telling the founding fathers that true freedom is impossible, might as well not even bother with trying to make a system where you have more freedom.

Well, that went off the rails quickly.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Nightmare1, on 07 March 2016 - 11:30 AM, said:

Shoot man, I run HBKs and such more than I run the meta Mechs. I'm okay with most of my Mechs being classed as under-performers.

They would be even worse if power-draw were connected to engine size, and just because you are ok with mechs being largely out-classed, doesn't mean everybody is, or should accept it like you do.

Nightmare1, on 07 March 2016 - 11:30 AM, said:

Well, that went off the rails quickly.

It is what happens when people use strawmen as their method to defeat arguments.

Nightmare1, on 07 March 2016 - 11:30 AM, said:

Also consider Mechs like the HBK-4P, Crabs, Zeuses, Awesomes

Hunchbacks and Awesomes don't use large engines, outside of the AWS-9M and I guess the PB. The Crab doesn't typically rely on a large engine because the shorter range lasers really don't blend well with its profile and Zeuses have the problem of competing with Stalkers (which would lose out on this) and Battlemasters which can mount even more energy with better mounts, and the Battlemaster can run almost as fast as the Zeus

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 March 2016 - 11:38 AM.

[Nightmare1]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 March 2016 - 11:35 AM, said:

They would be even worse if power-draw were connected to engine size, and just because you are ok with mechs being largely out-classed, doesn't mean everybody is, or should accept it like you do.

I'm not saying that everyone should accept it like me; I fully expect people like you to resist the notion. I'm just saying that I think my method is better and would like to see PGI try it before giving into the gloom-and-doom crowd. They can always take it out if it doesn't work, so what's the harm in trying?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 March 2016 - 11:35 AM, said:

It is what happens when people use strawmen as their method to defeat arguments.

Well then, work on your arguments so that you don't have to rely on strawmen.

[jweltsch]

Zerberus, on 07 March 2016 - 11:10 AM, said:

What you seem to be assuming is that I feel that an AC20 should have a similar poower draw to aPPC. But what happens wen you assume= Exactly, you make an *** out of u and me

But oyu obviously don´t have a clue how much power a large autoloader consumes... if the power consumption is so negligible, they why on earth were we re loading naval guns in WW2 by hand crank? Autoloader technology existed long before that...

But "for some reason", it didn´t become widespread until nuclear powered ships did... but of course this is pure coincidence, right?


Absolutely not, which is why I despise the concept of respawns and removing what little tactical depth we have bs turning everything into a skrimish twitchfest.



Once again, you assume, with all expected results. I never said I don´t understand it or wouldn´t expect it

I said your´re not going to get it.

Those are 2 completely different and in no way related statements. One is technical knowledge, the other is simple game design.

When you can explain, as Fup has requested numerous times, why kitfoxes and timberwolves should outclass everything else with regards to energy draw, and how that makes for good gameplay, then you can can talk to PGI about power draw = engine size.

But until then, I still say it´s not going to happen, and no amount of peenstroking or ad Hominem BS will change that.


OOOH, is widdle puddytat sad because I qwoted him "wong"??? OOOH, poor puddytat....

Either way, now you´re just grasping at straws and trying to use unfounded personal attacks so you can feel more manly when you masturbate yourself to sleep. Bite me, go play in the sandbox with your peers and let the adults speak.

You are still incorrect on the autoloaders. Autoloaders use very little power, in fact if you want the best comparison to something else would be a fork lift, which have been battery powered for decades now. In fact autoloaders dont even take a minute amount of strain on a diesle engine, much less a fusion powered one. The main reason for not using autoloaders, then, and still now (the US DOES NOT use autoloaders, it uses a manned gunner) is mechanicle unreliability, and a trained gunner is still FASTER than an autoloader believe it our not.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Nightmare1, on 07 March 2016 - 11:39 AM, said:

Well then, work on your arguments so that you don't have to rely on strawmen.

I don't think you get that it was YOUR argument that was a strawman, not mine. You made the claim that perfect balance is impossible (which it is) like it was mine or Fup's goal. While it would be nice, closing the gap each pass at a time is the goal.

Nightmare1, on 07 March 2016 - 11:39 AM, said:

I'm just saying that I think my method is better and would like to see PGI try it before giving into the gloom-and-doom crowd. They can always take it out if it doesn't work, so what's the harm in trying?

We already know it is pointless, the BESM (big-engine-stomp-meta) has been going strong since, well, pretty much the beginning. This just buffs it, when it isn't necessary, there is no need to try.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 March 2016 - 11:42 AM.

[Zerberus]

jweltsch, on 07 March 2016 - 11:40 AM, said:

You are still incorrect on the autoloaders. Autoloaders use very little power, in fact if you want the best comparison to something else would be a fork lift, which have been battery powered for decades now. In fact autoloaders dont even take a minute amount of strain on a diesle engine, much less a fusion powered one. The main reason for not using autoloaders, then, and still now (the US DOES NOT use autoloaders, it uses a manned gunner) is mechanicle unreliability, and a trained gunner is still FASTER than an autoloader believe it our not.

I´ll concede the AL point, if only becasue I´m not really interested in endlessly drawing out what was at best a secondary discussion.

But, just out of curiosity....Yes, forklifts can be battery powered (at least until a certain capacity, above about 2-3 tons depending on manufacturer you´re still going diesel)... but do you know how big the battery in a typical Still Rx50 (or similar) is or how short it lasts, despite having a capacity of 158A/h@ 24V? If you´re riding it "all day", you better hook it back up over your lunch break, or you´re gonna be walking the last hour of your workday... the power consumption is actually quite heavy.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 March 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

I don't think you get that it was YOUR argument that was a strawman, not mine. You made the claim that perfect balance is impossible (which it is) like it was mine or Fup's goal. While it would be nice, closing the gap each pass at a time is the goal.

I don´t want to tell you how to act, but know that this isn`t the first time (even in this thread) that he´s attributed his own shortcomings to other posters, That´s why I´m so glad be blocked me.

Edited by Zerberus, 07 March 2016 - 11:55 AM.

[Nightmare1]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 March 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

I don't think you get that it was YOUR argument that was a strawman, not mine. You made the claim that perfect balance is impossible (which it is) like it was mine or Fup's goal. While it would be nice, closing the gap each pass at a time is the goal.


We already know it is pointless, the BESM (big-engine-stomp-meta) has been going strong since, well, pretty much the beginning. This just buffs it, when it isn't necessary, there is no need to try.

Well, it's clear that you don't understand sarcasm. It's also clear that you're pretty much just a gloom-and-doomer.

Frankly, I'd like to see PGI experiment a bit rather than just giving into handwringers and taking the easiest path.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Nightmare1, on 07 March 2016 - 11:51 AM, said:

It's also clear that you're pretty much just a gloom-and-doomer.

There is a difference between pessimism and being realistic. If something is already good, and you make it better in comparison, then it isn't going to help anything.

[Zerberus]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 March 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

There is a difference between pessimism and being realistic. If something is already good, and you make it better in comparison, then it isn't going to help anything.

Au contraire, perfect is the enemy of good. The chances are good that it will be "verschlimmbessert" (german phrase, meaning worsened in an attempt to make it better)

[cazidin]

Hmm... recently Russ tweeted that after the change he might revert the Clan ER PPC to 15 damage, without splash damage. This can mean a few things. 1.The max limit of damage will be around 30-40 for pinpoint weapons. 2.PPCs will have a firing limit very similar to Gauss Rifles. They may not have a charge up but you'll be limited to firing two at a time with a minimum delay of half a second. 3.Lasers will have a similar cap which may be on the upper end because of beam duration. 4.It could mean absolutely nothing and that I'm reading too much into this.

[Trauglodyte]

I didn't write, or didn't mean to write, that the power draw cap should be limited to the engine size. It should be a formula similar to engine size/mech weight with whatever additional parameters need to be added. It makes sense that a 400 engine should provide more power draw than a 300 engine. BUT, if that 400 engine is pushing a mech to 150kph vs. the 300 engine only making a mech go 100 kphs, then we have something with which to work. We have issues with that in real life anyway; a 4 cylinder pushing a Yugo is one thing but that same 4 cylinder trying to push a Ford 350 Duely is something entirely different. The latter has much less torque and the fuel efficiency would be absolute garbage. But, that Yugo going 100 mph has much more crappy fuel efficiency than the same Yugo going 50 mph. So, the concept of engine draw needs to be a mechanic of engine size, mech weight, and mech speed because all three things tie in together.

[FupDup]

Trauglodyte, on 08 March 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

I didn't write, or didn't mean to write, that the power draw cap should be limited to the engine size. It should be a formula similar to engine size/mech weight with whatever additional parameters need to be added. It makes sense that a 400 engine should provide more power draw than a 300 engine. BUT, if that 400 engine is pushing a mech to 150kph vs. the 300 engine only making a mech go 100 kphs, then we have something with which to work.

That still doesn't solve the balancing issues.

A Kit Fox would have lower power output than an Arctic Cheetah, a Mad Cat would have higher power output than any other 75-ton heavy, and so on. Mechs with low engine caps don't need any additional gimping.

Making it based on engines/speed/weight is a can of worms that makes things worse. Just make it a static amount, and maybe give some mechs quirks for it if we feel like it for the Awesome or whatever.

[Lostdragon]

What are the chances they will even go through with the power draw change? They folded really fast in the face of tears and complaints on the info tech changes they wanted to make and basically scrapped that whole system, so this may wind up with the same fate.

[cazidin]

Lostdragon, on 08 March 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:

What are the chances they will even go through with the power draw change? They folded really fast in the face of tears and complaints on the info tech changes they wanted to make and basically scrapped that whole system, so this may wind up with the same fate.

At this point in time it seems very likely that PGI will implement a mechanic to replace Ghost Heat. People will almost always hate Ghost Heat more than they will most new systems.

[Nightmare1]

Trauglodyte, on 08 March 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

I didn't write, or didn't mean to write, that the power draw cap should be limited to the engine size. It should be a formula similar to engine size/mech weight with whatever additional parameters need to be added. It makes sense that a 400 engine should provide more power draw than a 300 engine. BUT, if that 400 engine is pushing a mech to 150kph vs. the 300 engine only making a mech go 100 kphs, then we have something with which to work. We have issues with that in real life anyway; a 4 cylinder pushing a Yugo is one thing but that same 4 cylinder trying to push a Ford 350 Duely is something entirely different. The latter has much less torque and the fuel efficiency would be absolute garbage. But, that Yugo going 100 mph has much more crappy fuel efficiency than the same Yugo going 50 mph. So, the concept of engine draw needs to be a mechanic of engine size, mech weight, and mech speed because all three things tie in together.

Exactly!

This guy gets it.

FupDup, on 08 March 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

That still doesn't solve the balancing issues.

A Kit Fox would have lower power output than an Arctic Cheetah, a Mad Cat would have higher power output than any other 75-ton heavy, and so on. Mechs with low engine caps don't need any additional gimping.

Making it based on engines/speed/weight is a can of worms that makes things worse. Just make it a static amount, and maybe give some mechs quirks for it if we feel like it for the Awesome or whatever.

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

[NoMoreKrazy]

FupDup, on 08 March 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

That still doesn't solve the balancing issues.

A Kit Fox would have lower power output than an Arctic Cheetah, a Mad Cat would have higher power output than any other 75-ton heavy, and so on. Mechs with low engine caps don't need any additional gimping.

Making it based on engines/speed/weight is a can of worms that makes things worse. Just make it a static amount, and maybe give some mechs quirks for it if we feel like it for the Awesome or whatever.

I think what he's trying to suggest is that the Kit Fox would have more power to work with in the system. Arctic Cheetah runs faster but has the same weight as the Kitfox. So it has a penalty to its power because of the excess speed. An Atlas running too small an engine wouldn't have the power as one running a bigger engine.

It's just an incredibly complex mechanic because you'd have to make a scale for Lights/Mediums/Heavies/Assaults in initial power, create an engine power rating increase for a bigger engine, coupled with an excess speed to tonnage power rate decrease and balance it so mechs in each weight class don't become obsolete.

And then that system has to work with the power draw/tonnage rates for weapons.

What if max armor was a "power draw" (moving Myomer or however you'd slice it) and taking less than max armor granted an increase in power? Glass cannon builds unite! Silly idea, I know.

[cazidin]

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.