21 replies to this topic

[Poopy Joe]

Instead of being killed if you lose a side torso you lose 33% total speed, If you lose both torsos you only have 33% of what your speed is.

Lets say your max total speed is 120 for lights. 120-66%= Max speed of 40 KPh. Pretty slow for a light.

[Chrithu]

I exclusively use XLs.

I disagree with you. Being killed due to a destroyed side torso is needed to keep XLs in line and thus not totally put standart engines to the state of being second class equipment that should not be used.

[Foxwalker]

I think most will agree that being killed is appropriate. The tremendous weight savings in exchange for 6 crit slots is too great an advantage without a big cost like death. With your suggestion, no one (except AC20 users) would use standard engines.

[Poopy Joe]

Jason Parker, on 15 December 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

I exclusively use XLs.

I disagree with you. Being killed due to a destroyed side torso is needed to keep XLs in line and thus not totally put standart engines to the state of being second class equipment that should not be used.

You're risking losing top speed of a side part gets destroyed. Making you more of a sitting duck. It doesnt make sence that a small side part being destroyed would render a mech destroyed.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I'm moving this over to the Suggestions Forums.

I would like to mention that you have to kill "3-slots' worth" of engine to kill it, according to the standard boardgame rules and the current videogame rules. Inner Sphere XL Engines take up 3 slots on each side, but Clan XL engines only take up 2 slots on each side...

[One Medic Army]

No.
If you want weight savings in your engine and not dying from a side torso lost you're going to need to wait for clan XL or light fusion engines.

[Hotthedd]

Without the increased risk of death, why would anyone use a standard engine? Like Foxwalker stated, only if you use a torso mounted AC20.

Edited by Hotthedd, 15 December 2012 - 09:23 PM.

[Poopy Joe]

Hotthedd, on 15 December 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

Without the increased risk of death, why would anyone use a standard engine? Like One Medic Army stated, only if you use a torso mounted AC20.

Its reducing max top speed to hardly anything.

How would losing 3 slots of engine make the entire engine not work?

[Hotthedd]

Poopy Joe, on 15 December 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

Its reducing max top speed to hardly anything.

How would losing 3 slots of engine make the entire engine not work?

I tell you what: Tell me where you live, and what kind of car you drive. I will come over and SHOW you how losing 1/3 of your engine renders your car inoperable.

[Deadoon]

Hotthedd, on 15 December 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

Without the increased risk of death, why would anyone use a standard engine? Like One Medic Army stated, only if you use a torso mounted AC20.

Actually there are mechs which mount the ac/20 in the side torso with xl, the ac/20 is allowed to slot share with another section, it just hasn't been implemented in mwo yet.

[Hotthedd]

Deadoon, on 15 December 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Actually there are mechs which mount the ac/20 in the side torso with xl, the ac/20 is allowed to slot share with another section, it just hasn't been implemented in mwo yet.

Well then there would be NO reason to mount a standard engine, then.

[Stingz]

Inner Sphere XL engines should stay the way they are, big risk, big reward. Just about everyone using an XL engine, does it for either weight savings and/or speed, not to live longer.

[Deadoon]

Hotthedd, on 15 December 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Well then there would be NO reason to mount a standard engine, then.

Lose a side torso with an IS XL and you are still dead.
Clan, they can lose a torso and still run at a slower speed only their XXL engines are side torso loss deaths.
An IS light engine does not have the side torso issue, unless you lose both, just like clan mechs.
An xxl engine weighs a mere 33% of a standard engine, compared to the 50% of a regular xl.

You also forget that you could also mount that ac/20 in the arm of nearly any mech via slot sharing, which makes it effectively a torso mount, which then leaves you with 8 slots in your torso there still. You technically could do the same with a clan uac/20 and dual mount them in a madcat, scary, eh?

Edited by Deadoon, 15 December 2012 - 10:33 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Deadoon, on 15 December 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

Lose a side torso with an IS XL and you are still dead.
Clan, they can lose a torso and still run at a slower speed only their XXL engines are side torso loss deaths.
An IS light engine does not have the side torso issue, unless you lose both, just like clan mechs.
An xxl engine weighs a mere 33% of a standard engine, compared to the 50% of a regular xl.

You also forget that you could also mount that ac/20 in the arm of nearly any mech via slot sharing, which makes it effectively a torso mount, which then leaves you with 8 slots in your torso there still. You technically could do the same with a clan uac/20 and dual mount them in a madcat, scary, eh?

Right. I agree. My point was to the poster that suggested that losing a side torso should not kill a mech with an XL engine. If that were the case, there would be no reason NOT to have an XL engine.

[Poopy Joe]

Stingz, on 15 December 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Inner Sphere XL engines should stay the way they are, big risk, big reward. Just about everyone using an XL engine, does it for either weight savings and/or speed, not to live longer.

God forbid making this game somewhat interesting.

How would losing 3 slots of engine render entire engine useless

No one is going to answer that with a straght up honest answer..

Wheres the "Big Reward" higher repair bills?

Edited by Poopy Joe, 16 December 2012 - 05:12 AM.

[Thorn Hallis]

I see no intention on PGIs side to change XL engines.

[Talinthis]

Poopy Joe, on 15 December 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

Its reducing max top speed to hardly anything.

How would losing 3 slots of engine make the entire engine not work?

I dunno about your fancy engines you get but if part of any engine was destroyed it would be rendered inoperable aka destroyed

[ValdnadHartagga]

Poopy Joe, on 16 December 2012 - 05:09 AM, said:

God forbid making this game somewhat interesting.

How would losing 3 slots of engine render entire engine useless

No one is going to answer that with a straght up honest answer..

Wheres the "Big Reward" higher repair bills?

1. We're trying to tell you the game wouldn't be interesting. You lose speed if you get legged too, but you're still able to fight - you don't see people asking for legs to be nerfed so we can have tank treads instead. If the only consequence to XL engine damage is reduced speed, then there's no reason to use a standard engine. In fact, it would be better to use the XL because your 'Mech becomes a zombie - it can take an engine hit and keep on going, whereas a standard engine suffering the same damage would be dead. There would be no critical disadvantage to the XL in this case, so everybody would use it. If everybody has the same special item, it's no longer special.

Half of BattleTech is weighing risk and reward - run a hotter ER laser? Use a gauss rifle that might end up killing you? Use precious weight to fit another heat sink? When you reduce or remove the risk, things become less interesting and the spirit of BattleTech/MechWarrior is lost (medium lasers notwithstanding).

2. Please read the following article: http://www.sarna.net...ion_Engine_-_XL

The Inner Sphere XL engine, as you have read, is simply lighter due to less material being used, thus leaving the engine with less protection (and thus, higher vulnerability to damage). Components are spaced out to (presumably) compensate for the loss of radiation shielding which results in critical slots in your side torsos. Slots aren't health points. They're actual components of your engine. A failure in any given part of an engine will affect the machine as a whole - in a car, if a hose breaks, you will experience engine/transmission failure. If your timing belt goes, you will experience engine failure. We're dealing with fusion engines here, so at the minimum any interruption in the process will simply shut the engine off, and if that interruption is the destruction of a critical component then the engine is rendered useless.

[neviu]

just no,
do people even read up on history of the mechwarrior of how its been,

[Willie Sauerland]

neviu, on 16 December 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:

just no,
do people even read up on history of the mechwarrior of how its been,

No. And PGIGP throwing canon out the window does not help sometimes. They make decisions based on how the game is working in a real-time FPS and not on the TT solely. However, this seems to let people think they can throw canon out the window as well to make their game "better".

As for the suggestion, the idea has been sufficiently negated. IS XL engines are not clan XL engines. Losing a torso should result in the loss of the engine functionality (now, whether criticals are being properly selected is a whole different question).