Jump to content

Wtf Is The Point Of 100 Ton Assault Mechs Anymore


36 replies to this topic

#1 Calbearpig

    Member

  • Pip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 15 posts

Posted 30 September 2016 - 01:01 AM

My 100 ton dire wolf has the same "energy" capacity as a 25 ton light mech. This is stupid and it disproportionately nerfs heavy assault mechs with boats of weapons that they can no longer fire. It also makes no logical sense. They should make energy draw relative to the engine so that it at least scales with tonnage. The current implementation is moronic (speaking as a very irritated assault mech player) and takes all the fun and purpose out of playing high tonnage assaults.

Also, to quote Ultimax from a previous post (http://mwomercs.com/...-pts-direction/):

[color=#959595]"This is a shooting game, it is fun to shoot weapons - that's part of the point.[/color]

[color=#959595]It is not fun to constantly restrict being able to actually shoot weapons, this is why Hot Maps are very rarely chosen over Cold Maps. They restrict fun. "[/color]

I already have an extremely low opinion of how PGI handled this IP, although it's just fun enough to keep me playing. It seems more and more they are COMPLETELY out of touch with community opinion and how to properly design a game that is fun to play. Things that would make the game more fun: more maps, deeper gameplay / game modes, added features (destructible environments anyone? MechAssault had collapsing buildings in 2004) improved visuals (Crysis from 2007 looked better and it runs the same engine. This is some lazy artwork for 2016). Things that make the game less fun: a downward spiral of nerfs that makes it harder to do the one thing driving a giant robot is supposed to let you do: fire your weapons and blow stuff up.

It is beyond me why this is the part of the game they would choose to expend so much time and effort "improving" when IMO there are so many more worthwhile aspects that would yield non controversial returns. Who's going to complain about more maps? And I am not at all convinced it's an improvement, for the reason stated above. Alphas are essentially capped regardless of tonnage, so I don't know why I should bother lugging around an Atlas or a Dire Wolf anymore.

Edited by Calbearpig, 30 September 2016 - 01:21 AM.


#2 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 25,363 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 30 September 2016 - 10:28 AM

Because a Locust can't equip 4 UAC/10 or 2 ERPPC + 2 Gauss. I'm pretty those are much deadlier than a Locust with 5-6 Medium Lasers.

Also, it's 20 tons, not 25.

#3 Livaria

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 388 posts

Posted 30 September 2016 - 12:11 PM

Yeah, I've tested a direwolf, You will have to change certain builds dramatically as I've discovered. I'm using 4 UAC/2s, 1 ER LL,1 LB-10X, And 3 ML. I seperate my armament in two groups.

For long range I use the UAC/2s and ER large laser.
For mid range I switch over to the LB-10X and 3 medium lasers.

#4 Cold Darkness

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 284 posts

Posted 30 September 2016 - 12:28 PM

why do people get the idea that bigger engines would result in more available energy? a bigger engine REQUIRES more energy to run. they are engines, not generators. duh.

#5 Calbearpig

    Member

  • Pip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 15 posts

Posted 30 September 2016 - 12:34 PM

The whole point was to get energy to scale with tonnage to some extent, or at least class. (i.e. all assaults get 60, heavies get 50, etc.) I think a 30 alpha universal cap regardless of mech class or tonnage is pretty stupid.

#6 Cold Darkness

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 284 posts

Posted 30 September 2016 - 02:25 PM

View PostCalbearpig, on 30 September 2016 - 12:34 PM, said:

The whole point was to get energy to scale with tonnage to some extent, or at least class. (i.e. all assaults get 60, heavies get 50, etc.) I think a 30 alpha universal cap regardless of mech class or tonnage is pretty stupid.


i wont argue with that. but on the same note, give bigger engines ernergy requirements and make energy supply chassi or, even better, tonnage based. give slow assaults and weapon plattform lights like kit fox some love again.

but i guess that would make the system to complex for what pgi intends.

#7 VitriolicViolet

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 529 posts
  • LocationAustralia, Melbourne

Posted 30 September 2016 - 03:22 PM

As for the 'they are engines not generators' your wrong. technically speaking an engine is a generator, it generates power (kinetic energy which can be transferred into electricity) usually from some external input ie fuel. These engines in particular are apparently fusion reactors which in theory are supposed to generate their own near limitless power ( limited by reactor size). They generate power through compressing and heating certain fuels like tritium, deuterium or molten lithium salts. when compressed and heated suffiecently it becomes a plasma locked in place with massive magnetic fields. This replicates a ring (or ball there are quite a few reactor designs now) of fusion reactions ie the sun hence why they are sometimes called 'sun in a bottle'. The greater the overall size of the reactor the more you can compress the plasma the higher the temp etc.
Yes you still need fuel input but in certain designs the amount is trivial.

So theoretically the larger a fusion reactor the larger the generated power. At least thats the current idea in physics as far as im aware its what the ITER is based on (simplistically). Short rant and its probably only 70% right but im hung over.

Edited: forgot to add that engines initially produce kinetic energy through a drive shaft but if you hook up magnets and copper wiring in a way that allows for the wire to rotate within the magnets then you get electricity as far as in aware, im no electrician.

Edited by VitriolicViolet, 30 September 2016 - 03:29 PM.


#8 Cold Darkness

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 284 posts

Posted 01 October 2016 - 01:40 PM

even lorewise it is unlikely that the bigger engines feature bigger fusion reactors. why? because at no point is the movement of the mechs limited by energy itself. the "engine" in this case would propably need to be those myomer muscles and whatever traditional mechanicaly moving parts are present in the mech. so more like a classic engine.

upgrading the reactorcapacity wouldnt do jackshit for the mechs movement abilitys, because it isnt limited by its output with the smallest reactor, too. this is easily visual at there being no limitation to whatever energyweapons the mechs fire outside of the usual heat that they also generate with bigger engines. and thats why it would make no sense whatsoever to include bigger reactors in the bigger engines.
bigger engines of the same tech-level do require more energy to run, though. (not that this would really affect the actual energy youd have for your weapons, but at least there would be a logical explanation as to why youd have less energy for weapons with bigger engines. it would really help the slower chassis out, have a heart.)

#9 VitriolicViolet

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 529 posts
  • LocationAustralia, Melbourne

Posted 01 October 2016 - 02:22 PM

sorry i leapt at the statement 'engines arent generators' and wasnt even thinking of the game. And yes you are correct the engine alone isnt responsible for movement you would need bigger myomers and gears/joints/widgets etc to make use of that power.

And yeah i dont think attaching heat cap to engine size is a good idea as not only does it mess up light-assault balance but it means you get weird scenarios where a Cicada (340 max engine) would have a higher cap than a Highlander (330 max engine).
Or where the Cataphract 4X has a lower cap than a Wolfhound etc.

#10 xe N on

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,318 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 01 October 2016 - 11:10 PM

View PostCalbearpig, on 30 September 2016 - 01:01 AM, said:

My 100 ton dire wolf has the same "energy" capacity as a 25 ton light mech.


In a 100 ton you can equip more heatsinks and thus can take some heat penalty from ED in contrast to the the light mech.

Beside the fact that you can equip heavier laser weapons sponsoring a much longer range than the small or medium lasers of a light mech. Ever tried to equip 3 C-LPL on a Cutefox?

Edited by xe N on, 01 October 2016 - 11:13 PM.


#11 Cold Darkness

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 284 posts

Posted 02 October 2016 - 04:01 AM

View Postxe N on, on 01 October 2016 - 11:10 PM, said:

Ever tried to equip 3 C-LPL on a Cutefox?


no. 3 would trigger ghostheat.

Edited by Cold Darkness, 02 October 2016 - 04:02 AM.


#12 xe N on

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,318 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 03 October 2016 - 08:45 AM

View PostCold Darkness, on 02 October 2016 - 04:01 AM, said:


no. 3 would trigger ghostheat.


That does not exist with the new ED system. You can fire 3 C-LPL without any penalty.

#13 Naduk

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,574 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 05 October 2016 - 10:16 PM

The whole point of ED is to limit alphas across the board
Heat limits do not and have never increased by weight in any past mw or bt game
This does not diminish the value of assaults

The advantage to driving the 100t death machine blistering with guns is you have many more options
You are not supposed to be carrying 10 large lasers or boating guns en mass at all
Your assault Mech should be carrying an array of weapons that let's you choose the best weapon to use at the time

Fighting something big and close , unleash that ac20
Dealing with lights , flay them with small lasers
Something far away , hit it with large lasers or lrm

You are not supposed to carrying 6 massive guns and running around pressing one button all day
That's not the spirit of battle tech

Now engines are simply power plants
They are reactors
But tying Ed to engine size makes no sense as the mechs them selves are very busy chewing up every bit of energy they can get
The bigger mechs work the same as smaller ones

They take everything they can, ED represents your weapons competing for reactor capacity
Your myomers are very greedy and have no real limit to how much draw they can utilize
They are the reason you go faster when you put in a bigger power plant
Almost everything that moves in your Mech is moved by a moymer
Just like the human body is with its muscles


This is why you need a minimum of ten heat sinks for every Mech
Simply standing still makes heat , the muscles must be constantly fed power

So a bigger Mech need much bigger muscles that need more power
There is absolutely no way that the bigger mechs would have a bigger energy draw cap than smaller mechs

The trade off is already seen in game, speed , armour ,firepower
Pick two , scale it by size

#14 Leopardo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,690 posts

Posted 05 October 2016 - 11:44 PM

also may i ask then if not supposed to carry a lot of BigFknGuns why they dont restrict it simply - by giving a SIZE to hardpoints - big for bigger guns - small for smaller ??????? - and now we need a holy crap balance - info war quirks and Ed now....GH....all that hell of work real work of programmers - instead they must just reconsider all mechs on paper - give the hardponits a size and dont need all this all that year !!
so that was all about - to prevent boating and hell of crap alpha????? - oaky reconsider the hardpoints of every mech!!!! and your boats of LPL is gone!!!!!

Edited by Leopardo, 05 October 2016 - 11:48 PM.


#15 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 19,677 posts
  • LocationGenau hier

Posted 05 October 2016 - 11:54 PM

View PostLeopardo, on 05 October 2016 - 11:44 PM, said:

also may i ask then if not supposed to carry a lot of BigFknGuns why they dont restrict it simply - by giving a SIZE to hardpoints - big for bigger guns - small for smaller ??????? - and now we need a holy crap balance - info war quirks and Ed now....GH....all that hell of work real work of programmers - instead they must just reconsider all mechs on paper - give the hardponits a size and dont need all this all that year !!
so that was all about - to prevent boating and hell of crap alpha????? - oaky reconsider the hardpoints of every mech!!!! and your boats of LPL is gone!!!!!

sized weapon mounts - are only good for two things.
  • aesthetics (really hate those Infantry Support Weapon size)
  • wider range of variants (if the HBK-4G can't mount either AC10; or 2 AC2s; while the HBK-4H can't mount AC20 or AC5s)
sized weapon mounts are/were and never will be useful for balancing anything

Question about Assault?
Well what is the balance base in this game? Unit or Tonnage?

If it is Unit as I think it is, - you need to alter the costs of the Units, and remove the Tonnage Limits from all game modes and queues
If it is Tonnage you need to bolster the role of the Assault (increased heat dissipation and capacity (you need more energy to heat a bucket of water in comparison with a cup)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 05 October 2016 - 11:57 PM.


#16 Widowmaker1981

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • 4,663 posts
  • LocationAt the other end of the pretty lights.

Posted 06 October 2016 - 01:58 AM

View PostNaduk, on 05 October 2016 - 10:16 PM, said:


The advantage to driving the 100t death machine blistering with guns is you have many more options
You are not supposed to be carrying 10 large lasers or boating guns en mass at all
Your assault Mech should be carrying an array of weapons that let's you choose the best weapon to use at the time

Fighting something big and close , unleash that ac20
Dealing with lights , flay them with small lasers
Something far away , hit it with large lasers or lrm


The actual result of this in a mutiplayer game is the extinction of those mechs, because range versatility is completely useless when compared to a smaller, faster mech with a properly synergised loadout that is able to better maintain its optimal engagement distance and output the exact same amount of firepower.

But you don't care that assaults would become extinct among people who want to win, do you?

Note that im not saying the assault must boat identical weapons, merely that its loadout must be synergistic, and it must be able to make use of all of it in any given engagement.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 06 October 2016 - 02:02 AM.


#17 Remover of Obstacles

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 415 posts

Posted 06 October 2016 - 09:26 AM

Thank you for an insightful post that considers the future effects of the proposed changes and refers to actual game mechanics.

View PostWidowmaker1981, on 06 October 2016 - 01:58 AM, said:


The actual result of this in a mutiplayer game is the extinction of those mechs, because range versatility is completely useless when compared to a smaller, faster mech with a properly synergised loadout that is able to better maintain its optimal engagement distance and output the exact same amount of firepower.

But you don't care that assaults would become extinct...

Edited by Remover of Obstacles, 06 October 2016 - 09:26 AM.


#18 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 25,363 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 06 October 2016 - 10:55 AM

View PostCold Darkness, on 02 October 2016 - 04:01 AM, said:

no. 3 would trigger ghostheat.

You missed the fact that the Cute Fox doesn't even have enough tonnage to equip 3 LPL in the first place.

#19 Znail

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts

Posted 07 October 2016 - 03:15 AM

View PostNaduk, on 05 October 2016 - 10:16 PM, said:

You are not supposed to carrying 6 massive guns and running around pressing one button all day
That's not the spirit of battle tech

On the contrary, that is very much the spirit of Battletech. The tabletop rules makes it possible to continiously fire a lot more weapons then what is possible in MWO. And that is without the ED system. That is why most default loadouts are terrible in MWO as they are based on the tabletop loadouts and feature a lot more weapons then practical in MWO.

As for the topic. Assault mechs doesn't need a larger energy cap, but they do need more energy regen. ED is ment to limit alpha strikes and that is fine, but energy regen limits dps and that is not supposed to be the role of ED, even according to PGI.

#20 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,349 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 07 October 2016 - 05:18 AM

View PostZnail, on 07 October 2016 - 03:15 AM, said:

On the contrary, that is very much the spirit of Battletech. The tabletop rules makes it possible to continiously fire a lot more weapons then what is possible in MWO. And that is without the ED system. That is why most default loadouts are terrible in MWO as they are based on the tabletop loadouts and feature a lot more weapons then practical in MWO.

As for the topic. Assault mechs doesn't need a larger energy cap, but they do need more energy regen. ED is ment to limit alpha strikes and that is fine, but energy regen limits dps and that is not supposed to be the role of ED, even according to PGI.

What build can push out more than 20dps and not be limited by heat anyways?
Only UAC boats can possibly push hig hdps with low enough heat to even try this, so why do you want more energy regen if you can't use it anyway?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users