31 replies to this topic

[KodiakGW]

Nope. Can't have that. We need to make sure that we don't stray too far from table top rules. Because nothing makes more sense than to base mech specifications of a real time mech simulation/first person shooter/E-Sport (or whatever name you want to call it) off specs made for a turn and dice based game.

[Lootee]

I suspect the reason engine ratings don't follow the BT construction rules which only allow multiples of walking speed x tonnage is because of weapon hard points.

In BT if you had 14.5 tons of space left over after maxing out armor you could fill it with 10 flamers and 9 small lasers. With weapon hard points this is impossible so flexible engine ratings is where you are meant to use your excess tonnage.

Edited by Lootee, 30 May 2016 - 05:10 AM.

[Tarogato]

KodiakGW, on 30 May 2016 - 05:09 AM, said:

Nope. Can't have that. We need to make sure that we don't stray too far from table top rules. Because nothing makes more sense than to base mech specifications of a real time mech simulation/first person shooter/E-Sport (or whatever name you want to call it) off specs made for a turn and dice based game.

Who gives a shjt whether it's table top? I just would rather mechs look and behave like they actually weigh what it says on the tin. Instead we have a 100-ton mech that can go 70kph all the time, and 85-ton mechs that can go 82kph all the time. Assault mechs going that fast (with all their wonky animations from trying to go that fast*) should be the rare exceptions, not standard fare.

*ever watch mechs like Timbers, Ravens, Battlemasters, Stalkers... plodding away at 70% throttle? They actually look amazing and relatively immersive at times.

[Darlith]

Metus regem, on 30 May 2016 - 04:59 AM, said:

Well since they already ignored engine rules from the get go, what harm could it possibly do.... /sarcasm


Seriously, since they ignored the TT Engine rules, everything had a max engine size of 400, but engine sizes went up by a multiplication of weight*walking speed, it had balance already built into it.

For example a Mauler could have:

90
180
270
360

For engine sizes, but no, we get a borked system that doesn't make a lot of sense....

To be fair, as I recall anyway that rule was needed in TT because of the hex based movement. If you put engine sizes in between those you had mechs that moved part of a hex in a turn, which just didn't work.

For a game with realtime movement though you can use different rules and have them work fine. In the context of this game the engine cap with a few tweaks for chassis that the rule might screw up works well.

[Metus regem]

Darlith, on 30 May 2016 - 12:24 PM, said:

To be fair, as I recall anyway that rule was needed in TT because of the hex based movement. If you put engine sizes in between those you had mechs that moved part of a hex in a turn, which just didn't work.

For a game with realtime movement though you can use different rules and have them work fine. In the context of this game the engine cap with a few tweaks for chassis that the rule might screw up works well.

You are right, it is a result of hex based maps, that being said in previous mech warriors (read 2 and 3) the engine rule from TT worked just fine, it really made you think if you really needed that extra 10/20 KPH or if you really needed that extra internal Heat Sink.

Here though, in my Riflemen I use a 250 standard rather than the 240 standard that they come with, that change costs me .5t, and gives me 10 true dubs, though if I had to go from a 240 to a 300, yea then I'd really be weighing is the extra speed and extra heat sink(s) really that important to me?

[Xetelian]

The STK is already out gunned by other mechs

LRMs? Warhawk because STK has 6 and 10 tubecounts, The Awesome has 15 and 20 tube counts the Highlander IIC has 20 tube count

Lasers? Battlemaster and Banshee have better setups

Spheroid, on 29 May 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

No one in their right mind would demand a fast Stalker. It runs contrary to the hitbox and hardpoint layout it is endowed with. There is already a high engine cap 85 tonner, the Battlemaster. I suggest you use that.

The STK isn't the killer mech it used to be, the 3 ERLL range king has been neutered and the Humanoid shapes are better for rolling damage. It also isn't the only mech I'd advocating for.

Tarogato, on 30 May 2016 - 05:06 AM, said:

I'd rather lower the engine caps of all the mechs in the game. They don't feel or look like battlemechs when they are moving 30% faster than the source material imagined them to be, especially the heavies and assaults.

What about the insane indirect buff to the Clan heavies that would bring? The 375 on the TBR is hardlocked, how would you lower it for this? Ruin the stock build? EBJ? HBR? All would be faster than any other heavy if you lowered the max engine.

Naduk, on 29 May 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

I would rather things not change here The engine rule is just one aspect in a large set of systems that give mechs their character If anything, we need lower caps on other mechs to reduce their speed or outlandish builds that are out of character for the chassis For example, hunchbacks are not known for being good athletes

So you want the HBK to crawl along but the SCR is stock at 97KPH, you see the indirect buff this gives the Omni mediums?






Some of you are so invested in going slow that you don't even realize how out paced you'd be by the Omnimechs with their locked stock huge engines.

What gives? Can you understand the STK can't Roll damage and doesn't have the quirks of the AS7 or BNC or BLR?

[oldradagast]

Metus regem, on 30 May 2016 - 04:59 AM, said:

Well since they already ignored engine rules from the get go, what harm could it possibly do.... /sarcasm

Seriously, since they ignored the TT Engine rules, everything had a max engine size of 400, but engine sizes went up by a multiplication of weight*walking speed, it had balance already built into it.

For example a Mauler could have:

90
180
270
360

For engine sizes, but no, we get a borked system that doesn't make a lot of sense....

If that were enforced, IS would be completely dead (barring laughably stupid quirks) since the second step in making any IS mech playable (after adding DHS and Endo) is to put a logical size engine in it. Those rules were needed for tabletop, where there was no such thing as graduated speed because of movement needing to be in whole hexes, but they aren't needed in an FPS.

I'm not sure what the big deal is anyway; there are very few mechs in the game that would really benefit much from a higher engine size cap. Some of the mechs that can't quite get to 250 have issues, there's the Cataphract 4X (which is a fail-mech today anyway), and maybe the Awesome (also a fail mech, but one of the reals for fail is having a much lower engine cap than other 80-tonners.) That's really about it.

Edited by oldradagast, 30 May 2016 - 05:55 PM.

[Helsbane]

Raise the engine caps?!? Shame on you for even suggesting such a thing! Can't you see Paul's vision? His reasoning behind these laughably underpowered mechs is surely godlike in its brilliance. How dare you question Paul's hard work?!?

Now, be a good little boy and buy a mechpack!

[TELEFORCE]

I'd like to see all of the Awesomes get a cap between 320 and 400.

[STEF_]

Xetelian, on 29 May 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

Stalkers, please raise from 310, 61.5 kph isn't very fast for 85 tons

Cataphracts, please raise from 340

Catapult, please raise from 315

Urbanmech please raise from 180

Highlander please raise from 330

Mauler please raise from 325

Many more/ect...

Zeus can carry a 390 but my Highlander only a 330?
AWS 8V can only carry a 300 but a 9M can carry a 385?


These caps don't make sense and limit a lot of speed.

The KDK is out, it can go 69.7 with a blistering alpha

Why can't the others? Most of which can't carry huge alphas with high end XLs

The issues mwo has come from too much speed.
It's the CoD mentality, the e-sport mentality that need speed and wants uber tonnage machines to move like sprinters.

The obvious solution would be to LOWER the speed of mechs going too much "speedy gonzalez".

Tarogato, on 30 May 2016 - 05:27 AM, said:

Who gives a shjt whether it's table top? I just would rather mechs look and behave like they actually weigh what it says on the tin. Instead we have a 100-ton mech that can go 70kph all the time, and 85-ton mechs that can go 82kph all the time. Assault mechs going that fast (with all their wonky animations from trying to go that fast*) should be the rare exceptions, not standard fare.

*ever watch mechs like Timbers, Ravens, Battlemasters, Stalkers... plodding away at 70% throttle? They actually look amazing and relatively immersive at times.

^^ 100%
I <3 u like a real cat, Taro!

[Slow and Decrepit]

Tarogato, on 30 May 2016 - 05:06 AM, said:

I'd rather lower the engine caps of all the mechs in the game. They don't feel or look like battlemechs when they are moving 30% faster than the source material imagined them to be, especially the heavies and assaults.

Must be a light pilot!

[Fang01]

Tarogato, on 30 May 2016 - 05:06 AM, said:

I'd rather lower the engine caps of all the mechs in the game. They don't feel or look like battlemechs when they are moving 30% faster than the source material imagined them to be, especially the heavies and assaults.

That might be acceptable if you had to trade your mouse aim and damage for a set of dice