18 replies to this topic

[Tibbnak]

As a header, yes I know PTS hasn't even started yet and any serious feedback can't start till we actually test the system they have right now.

This is meant to ask a question to think about during the PTS: Why the same amount of energy max for everyone?

Shouldn't it be based on engine?

STD engines would probably have better heat handling than XL (and far better than XXL), and bigger = higher energy cap and smaller = lower?
IDK

[FupDup]

Basing it on engine means that mechs with low engine cap become trash.

For example, the Adder would have inferior firepower to the faster lights. Isn't that just a little bit odd?

[Tibbnak]

Yeah probably. Looking over all the engine caps it would actually make lights actually fit in with the lore builds instead of being bizzare run-n-alpha demons but MWO is about putting a bunch of random mecs on opposite sides of the same battlefield at the same time and bumping them together like a mech version of "how do you Do it?"

Edited by Tibbnak, 18 August 2016 - 02:59 PM.

[SuomiWarder]

My first thought is where do heat sinks fit into all of this ? If you have 30 energy available on any mech (or even if it is engine or weight class based) does that mean one should dump all heat sinks possible as they don't do anything anymore?

[ExAstra]

I don't think basing it off of engine cap is really the way to go - for the above mentioned reason of it screwing over mechs with low engine caps, or mechs that are locked into low engines in general.

The best solution for simplicity sake, while still employing a diversity amongst the mechs, would be a by-tonnage factor I think.

But for now, I think going with a flat number for all mechs is probably the right solution. We can test it, and see how it feels, and send them some feedback until we all find out a better system - if there is one.

SuomiWarder, on 18 August 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

My first thought is where do heat sinks fit into all of this ? If you have 30 energy available on any mech (or even if it is engine or weight class based) does that mean one should dump all heat sinks possible as they don't do anything anymore?

You still need heat sinks. Weapons still produce heat when you use them. Whether or not you are hit by "Ghost Heat" is now determined by the Energy Bar, not the amount of weapons you are firing of a particular type.

As was stated in the announcement - a mech firing 3 SRM6s will not incur heat penalties (still produces heat). A mech firing 4 SRM6s will incur heat penalties (an extra 8 heat on your mech over what the 4 SRM6s already make in heat)

Edited by ExAstra, 18 August 2016 - 02:39 PM.

[FupDup]

ExAstra, on 18 August 2016 - 02:37 PM, said:

I don't think basing it off of engine cap is really the way to go - for the above mentioned reason of it screwing over mechs with low engine caps, or mechs that are locked into low engines in general.

The best solution for simplicity sake, while still employing a diversity amongst the mechs, would be a by-tonnage factor I think.

But for now, I think going with a flat number for all mechs is probably the right solution. We can test it, and see how it feels, and send them some feedback until we all find out a better system - if there is one.

By tonnage also has problems. I'll use the slow lights like the Adder as examples again. They're supposed to pack more pewpew than other lights as a tradeoff for their low speed. Giving them the same energy cap as the faster lights would ruin that.

It's really a derpy situation no matter how it's handled.

[ExAstra]

FupDup, on 18 August 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

By tonnage also has problems. I'll use the slow lights like the Adder as examples again. They're supposed to pack more pewpew than other lights as a tradeoff for their low speed. Giving them the same energy cap as the faster lights would ruin that.

It's really a derpy situation no matter how it's handled.

Not sure I really agree on this point - it does have more "pewpew". It has 2 ER PPCs, and firing both of them doesn't incur a heat penalty under the current value of 30.

I do get what you're getting at though. Perhaps mechs could have energy draw quirks with specific weapons? I know we have more than enough quirks as it is already though.. it's not an easy situation.

[Tibbnak]

If we just divide the max engine cap by 10 to get energy, locust would have 19, adder would have 21, arctic cheetah would have 24, atlas would have 40.

On paper that sounds bad but looking what's functionally ingame right now it seems like that would just mean that locusts would want to mount small weapons instead of large weapons unless they wanted to hill hump and manage heat.

[TyphonCh]

The nice thing about this system is that underwhelming mechs like the Adder or Victor can be balanced around Energy draw. It might work out really well. For example, higher energy pool, higher energy recharge rate, etc. It will give them more freedom without having to rely on quirks to balance everything

[pyrocomp]

Tibbnak, on 18 August 2016 - 03:06 PM, said:

If we just divide the max engine cap by 10 to get energy, locust would have 19, adder would have 21, arctic cheetah would have 24, atlas would have 40.

On paper that sounds bad but looking what's functionally ingame right now it seems like that would just mean that locusts would want to mount small weapons instead of large weapons unless they wanted to hill hump and manage heat.

And Clan Omnimechs will get what? What they ride on now or other value of what they could've mounted if the engine was no fixed?

[Tibbnak]

pyrocomp, on 18 August 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

And Clan Omnimechs will get what? What they ride on now or other value of what they could've mounted if the engine was no fixed?

PGI could just make omnimech engines changeable. Kinda silly that they aren't.

[pyrocomp]

Tibbnak, on 18 August 2016 - 03:39 PM, said:

PGI could just make omnimech engines changeable. Kinda silly that they aren't.

And behold of 100+ kmph Timbers just for lulz... I'll skip even if that mean that my Dire will still be slow as... well, as a Dire.

[kapusta11]

What is more important is that with the same ghost energy decay rate max dps is the same across all mechs too.

[kapusta11]

Oops double post

Edited by kapusta11, 18 August 2016 - 03:54 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Honestly the energy per mech just needs to be raised across the board (40 sounds better). This nerfed the best lights post rescale and this also hit assaults hard unless it happens to be lucky enough to be dakka capable. Mediums and heavies came out of this mostly unscathed, but some heavies did get touched.

Lasers are pretty much a no-no unless it is LPL spam.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 August 2016 - 04:41 PM.

[R 13]

I've always been in favor of basing the energy cap on engine size because logic and engineering suggest that it makes the most sense. It also makes sense for most bigger 'mechs (therefore bigger engines) to be able to power more weapons at once vs. smaller mechs with smaller engines.

With the above, I think the cap should be an actual cap, not just a suggestion. If your engine only produces 30 arbitrary energy units, you literally shouldn't be able to fire more than 30 AEU worth of weapons simultaneously (or maybe, but with reduced power lasers, slower rate of fire for AC).

Lastly, linking energy draw to damage is less than ideal considering say, most "energy" needed for a ballistic weapon is in the shell casing.

[Syanis]

Would a system based on mech tonnage (or just light, medium, heavy, assault) mixed with also engine size work as well? Give standard engines a bit of a boost over XL's.

Lights at 15-20 Energy
Mediums at 20-25 Energy
Heavy at 30-35 Energy
Assault at 40-45 Energy

Then further base it off the max engine size for that mech. If max is 250 for a Medium for instance then running a 250 XL or STD would give you 25 Energy. If run an XL under that and your at 20 Energy while an STD 220 may still give you 25 Energy and for every size under you lose 1 Energy point down to 20 Energy.

Another way may be simply using the above Energy scale and max engine size gives you the max range of energy while anything under gives you the bottom end of the scale.

Yet I don't see why a Light should be at the same Energy as an Assault or Heavy running a much bigger and more powerful engine. Further what is the point of having a dozen hardpoints when with 4 you could be capped out. They can't really be thinking people want to build omni spec builds with a little long range, a little medium range, and a little short range and only use what is set for that range.

Still there may be the odd mech that just doesn't balance with the system but the 30 flat Energy system is still worse.

I do see the point of them trying to slow down damage and the match overall along with nerfing the whole sniping game that pisses off half the base where half the team is brawlers who in most of the maps could be picked up before getting close with coordinated snipers at 1500+/- meters.

[kapusta11]

The problem with increased ghost energy cap or increasing it for lasers without accounting for weapon range is that you'll be able to fire more "large" lasers smultaneously. Battlemaster will turn in truly "one button" mech. Ironic isn't it?

[50 50]

For this pass it doesn't need to be based on engine.
Ideally it should, it would add a different element to the system.

Remember though that taking a mech with a larger engine means allocating more tonnage to the engine instead of weapons and therefore may not be optimal. It may balance itself out and an engine cap probably isn't going to be as much of a detriment.

This is a really early test, I am actually surprised it has been made available so soon.
So, test the mechanic, provide some constructive feedback and lets work it through to the next pass.