59 replies to this topic

[kesmai]

El Bandito, on 09 January 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

Gameplay > all. Same reason why MGs have such crap range, and why bigger ACs have shorter range, in contrast to real life. Heck, MWO's version of Commando can't even realistically fit a pilot in that head, but PGI had to make it that tiny so it won't get killed so easily.

Exactly this could be the pgi argument for all changes, flaws and incoherences implemented by them.
Real life is the death sentence to all discussions on this forum, yet the weapon ranges fit the battletech universe.

Balance for the sake of balance is not good enough because this is not a game out of any context.
If you go for such an approach, then think it through. Till the end. Which will be a homogenic line up of samey same things.
I'd say nope to that.

[El Bandito]

kesmai, on 09 January 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

Exactly this could be the pgi argument for all changes, flaws and incoherences implemented by them.
Real life is the death sentence to all discussions on this forum, yet the weapon ranges fit the battletech universe.

Balance for the sake of balance is not good enough because this is not a game out of any context.
If you go for such an approach, then think it through. Till the end. Which will be a homogenic line up of samey same things.
I'd say nope to that.

The game does need same level of competence for each side, but that does not mean they have to be exactly the same thing. For example, if you make IS XL immune to single ST death, you can still give it different penalty on destruction than that of the Clan one, to keep the flavor unique enough. "Equal but different" approach can work. It worked for other shooters, such as Counter-Strike.

Edited by El Bandito, 09 January 2017 - 07:13 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Dakota1000, on 09 January 2017 - 03:32 AM, said:

Night Gyrs have a 300 rated engine in a 75 ton frame, its speed is on par with assaults and slower than top IS heavy builds on average. So a global agility change basing it on something like tonnage purely instead of tonnage+engine rating could give a considerable boost to the Night Gyr.

El Bandito is likely just taking a jab at this change designed to boost underperforming IS mechs also giving a boost to a top performing clan mech.

But, they can all have arbitrary values
A weaker variant can have different base values, and 75 tonners can twist or turn at different speeds

[Almond Brown]

kesmai, on 09 January 2017 - 05:11 AM, said:

Ok, my BT ramble was ********.
In the back of my memory it seems we already had such a discussion as early as 2013.
Just let me understand how a bigger engine with more power does not affect mobility and agility of a engine driven machine that depends on said power.
If it is just a mechwarrior balance thing for the sake of balance without a logical explanation, then i also can get back to my BT ramble, because it makes no sense to balance isolated issues without looking at the framework existing, which imho should be as close to the available information about the franchise it exists upon.

Does the Engine in a car effect handling and the likes? Or does it just make you go faster as it gets larger and the whole mobility/agility system is handled by those sub-systems in place on the vehicle for those exact reasons...

The perfect solution would indeed be a de-couple but the follow up would be sub-systems, independent of the Engine that drive the agility and mobility features so desired by making them have "independent" weight cost per chassis and force the pilot to decide, after selecting a Mechs Speed(engine rating) how much Mobility and Agility they are willing to put out for. LOL!

I can hear the screams already. "But but, if they do that, how will I cool my weapons and increase their Range and... and..." and the answer is you have to make a GD decision about the ROLE that your Mech will take on.

The new Skills system would be great for that. Want fast Torso Twist, install "Hydraulics V" cost (?????) weight 5t.

[Dino Might]

Decoupling engine size from torso twist speed does not necessarily make engineering sense, but neither do giant robits that are only 100 tons, the fact that they can move bipedally, the complete lack of a knee in the chicken walker leg design, etc. So many things are space magic already, and this change is not nearly as far fetched as much of the base lore.

So using this excuse just seems like a cop out because you want your ballerina Timby to continue to dominate all comers. Give me a break.

[1453 R]

Decoupling engine size/rating from engine performance is...well, every time I see the subject come up I have to ask myself "why?"

"We want to decouple the size of your engine from any and every single possible variable that matters for your 'Mech(!!!) except raw straight-line ground speed and maybe heat sink count if that's important at some point in the future. Putting a larger, more powerful engine in your 'Mech, often at huge premiums in weight, does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER(!!!) except give you some extra klicks in a sprint! Your Timber Wolf with a monumental hardlocked cXL375 you can't get rid of has exactly the same completely 100% identical in all respects save groundspeed movement profile as that Night Gyr that gets double your firepower, or that Orion on the Sphere side running an iXL250 in order to sling enough firepower to compete with a lot of Clan assault 'Mechs."

...why?

Why should engine upgrades be a near-meaningless nonissue that buys you no performance improvements whatsoever despite being one of the biggest single tonnage investments you can make on a 'Mech? Why should every single 50-ton 'Mech have an identical movement profile that cannot be altered in any meaningful way?

Why do people want to reduce engine decisions to "run the smallest engine you can get away with in 100% of cases because bigger engines are a noob trap that don't buy you any real advantage?"

Straight-line speed, without any other corresponding performance improvements, is a decidedly anemic payoff for multiple tons invested in a larger engine. If you're no longer able to outmaneuver Night Gyrs with twice your firepower whilst driving a Timber Wolf...why are you driving a Timber Wolf?

[Alan Davion]

Almond Brown, on 09 January 2017 - 08:47 AM, said:

Does the Engine in a car effect handling and the likes? Or does it just make you go faster as it gets larger and the whole mobility/agility system is handled by those sub-systems in place on the vehicle for those exact reasons...

Actually yes it does. However, it's more about how the car itself is engineered. For example, let's take a pretty big car, say one of the recent Camaro models. That's a pretty big car, with a pretty big engine mounted in the front, with the drive wheels at the back.

Then, let's take a smaller car, say, a 1988 Pontiac Fiero GT. That's a small two-seater with a small, mid-engine layout, also with rear wheel drive. Why the 1988 GT model you might ask? Because it is, for all intents and purposes, the best Fiero ever made. The suspension system being the type of system that the designers had wanted to put into the car in the first place, but were prevented from doing so by GM until the cars final year of production.

The Camaro, being bigger and heavier, with a huge portion of that weight in the front, will have to slow down a lot earlier, and a lot longer to enter into a turn without losing control in some fashion.

The Fiero, being smaller and lighter, with the engine behind the driver, while naturally not as powerful as the Camaro, it will have overall better handling, not needing to slow down nearly as much to go through a turn.

The Fiero will accelerate quicker off the line thanks to its engine being right on top, just about, of the drive wheels, giving it better traction, while the Camaro will have to accelerate slower off the line to avoid spinning its tires and losing ground. This is assuming we're using street/sporty tires and not full race/drag slicks or something.

The Camaro will be faster on the straights yes, given its bigger, more powerful engine, but that heavy front end will affect its handling in a corner. If you're not careful you can wear out your front brakes a lot earlier than you'd planned, which will affect your handling even further.

The Fiero, on the other hand, can brake later into the turn than the Camaro, and accelerate earlier out of the same corner, due to its smaller body, lighter weight, and more advantageous engine placement. This also prevents you from wearing out certain components earlier than planned.

Also, before anyone tries the whole "Fieros burst into fire" B-S on me...

DON'T.

I own a 1985 Fiero with the 2.8 liter V6 engine, and I've done extensive research on the Fiero family in general, so I know what I'm talking about here.

The few occurrences of that actually happening were on the first half of the original 1984 model run, using the 2.5 liter 4-cylinder engine, because people treated them like sports cars when the car, and the engine itself, was not designed for that sort of abuse at the time, along with improper maintenance which lead to an oil leak that hit the exhaust manifold which lead to a fire in the engine bay.

The second half of the 1984 model year run, and every subsequent model year, featured a correction for this problem and there were never any reports of fires from then on. The models with a V6 engine in them were also immune from this problem as they were naturally built to take more abuse than the I4 engine.

So in closing, yes, the engine does play a part in affecting the handling characteristics of a car.

Edited by Alan Davion, 09 January 2017 - 09:35 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alan Davion, on 09 January 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

So in closing, yes, the engine does play a part in affecting the handling characteristics of a car.

No, the engine in this case doesn't directly affect the handling characteristics, where the engine is placed and weight (both how much and how it is distributed) has more impact on it than the power of the engine itself. If anything you just gave an argument as to why agility should NOT be tied strictly to speed (ie why the Adder and SCrow handle the exact same way without quirks).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 January 2017 - 09:36 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 January 2017 - 09:35 AM, said:

No, the engine in this case doesn't directly affect the handling characteristics, where the engine is placed and weight (both how much and how it is distributed) has more impact on it than the power of the engine itself. If anything you just gave an argument as to why agility should NOT be tied strictly to speed (ie why the Adder and SCrow handle the exact same way without quirks).

I never said it directly affects the handling, only that it is a "factor". The final characteristics depend on the final design of the car itself, as well as a dozen or so other factors.

A Camaro would handle differently than a Fiero. A Fiero would handle differently than a Porsche 911. A Porsche 911 would handle differently than a Subaru WRX.

Engine type, engine size, engine placement, suspension, tires, drive type, aerodynamics, all play a part in the final handling characteristics of the car.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alan Davion, on 09 January 2017 - 09:55 AM, said:

I never said it directly affects the handling, only that it is a "factor".

Then you missed what he was trying to get or decided we needed unnecessary clarification.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 January 2017 - 10:00 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 January 2017 - 10:00 AM, said:

Then you missed what he was trying to get or decided we needed unnecessary clarification.

No I'm pretty sure I got exactly what he was getting at. Almond Brown never "specifically" asked if the engine had a "direct" affect on a car's handling. Instead it was a very "general" question.

Almond Brown, on 09 January 2017 - 08:47 AM, said:

Does the Engine in a car effect handling and the likes? Or does it just make you go faster as it gets larger and the whole mobility/agility system is handled by those sub-systems in place on the vehicle for those exact reasons...

Seems to me I understood quite well what he was getting at.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Mechs are not cars. They don't run on wheels mind you. Most issues with handling differences in cars rely on the wheels and the steering/suspension system. Mechs don't have those, not in car-related sense.

An engine affects how fast the legs can move, but it does not affect how fast arms or torso move? Really?

I'm all for some buffs for STD and IS XL engines, but this idea is kinda too nonsensical, even for stompy robbits in space.

[AppleseeN]

ELAR 440 8 critslots, 32 tons... not an XL VLAR, twice powerfull costs only 3kk
Welcome to Lyran Commonwealth

[AppleseeN]

Alan Davion, on 09 January 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

So in closing, yes, the engine does play a part in affecting the handling characteristics of a car.

Nope, it'll not untill you'll get more than 150-200bhp per ton... I litteraly mean thrust. If your Fiero GT instead of gettin' V6, would get an V12 RR-Griffon 37 litre engine, it does affects car "temper" in the most directed way.

But, there is totaly different picture with "walkers". Engine... Powerplant affects all systems which are powered by it, including a walking gear. Firstly it affects amount of energy weapons that could be mounted on the battle walker... but does not affects an conventional weapons such as AC/SRM/MRM/LRM. Critically relied on powerplant excessive thrust are such weapons who use both... capacitating induction effect and "launching" projectile together, I mean Gauss Rifle and PPC/ERPPC.

But there is the "DARK SIDE" of it... Powerplant on "walker" litteraly can not affect walking gear, cause there is stricted movement algorithm which injection thrust can not be launched faster or slower than it is simply cause it's a PURE MECHANIC. It means that it litteraly can't do more work than it's movement scheme allows it. More simple... there will be NO difference between STD180 or XL400 in movement speed.

But it's a just game, not more, nor less.

Sorry for my awkward english folks.

Edited by AppleseeN, 09 January 2017 - 10:42 AM.

[1453 R]

The engine in a 'Mech isn't comparable to the engine in a car. As Appleseen noted, you shouldn't even really be calling it an 'engine'; it's a powerplant, not a mechanical driver. Realistically, engine swaps shouldn't be possible without what amounts to a ground-up redesign of the machine as replacing the power core invalidates all the engineering put into the rest of the machine.

However, this is MWO the video game, not reality. We don't have powerplants, power cores, or generators, we have engines, and in MWO/the BattleTech lore MWO is drawn from, engines principally affect your 'Mech's movement. TT doesn't have mobility so engines don't affect it there, but MWO very much does have mobility. Decoupling engine from movement makes no sense in a BattleTech perspective - should the game decouple speed from engine rating as well? An Orion is supposed to be a 4/6 'Mech - should it be a 4/6 equivalent (64kph) 'Mech regardless of whatever engine you put into it?

Of course not - that makes no sense. The tabletop game explicitly makes a point of "Biggah Engine = Moar Movement". An Orion rejiggered to run on a 375 instead of a 300 would be a 5/8 'Mech, same as the Timber Wolf. Conversely, an Orion rejiggered to run on a 225 instead would be a 3/5 barge, moving at the same pace as stock Atlases or Whales. Those values are the entirety of a 'Mech's movement profile in TT, and it is strictly and entirely dictated by the engine.

So why should we remove the ability of the engine, in MWO, to influence a 'Mech's movement profile? Simply because MWO has more factors in said profile than a TT 'Mech, you wish to enormously devalue engines/engine upgrades as a sop to the STD folks, or a crappy quick-fix to the oft-conceived notion that 'Mechs are too agile for their own good?

Can we, like...not do that, instead?

Edited by 1453 R, 09 January 2017 - 10:51 AM.

[Alan Davion]

AppleseeN, on 09 January 2017 - 10:41 AM, said:

Nope, it'll not untill you'll get more than 150-200bhp per ton... I litteraly mean thrust. If your Fiero GT instead of gettin' V6, would get an V12 RR-Griffon 37 litre engine, it does affects car "temper" in the most directed way.

A 37 litre engine?! What the hell kind of vehicle does that come from? There's no way in hell such an engine would fit in a Fiero. Have you ever looked at how small a Fiero is?

Are you sure you don't mean 3.7 litre? And a V12 at that? That's got to be the smallest damn V12 ever.

The biggest engine I've ever seen someone cram into a Fiero's engine bay was a 454 cubic inch, 7.5 litre V8 out of a Chevelle, and that pushed the limits of the Fiero's engine bay to the absolute limit, and there's been only one of those that I know of.

The more common engine conversions you'll see with a Fiero are 2.2 or 2.4 litre I4 engines out of cars like the Chevy Cobalt, which can be naturally aspirated, supercharged or turbocharged, 3.4 litre V6 DOHC engines from cars like the Chevy Monte Carlo, 3.8 litre V6 engines, with or without superchargers from cars like the Chevy Impala or Pontiac Grand Prix, 4.6 and 4.9 litre Cadillac engines, and LS series engines from old 350 CI LS1s all the way up to the LSX.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 09 January 2017 - 10:50 AM, said:

crappy quick-fix to the oft-conceived notion that 'Mechs are too agile for their own good?

How exactly is it a "crappy" quick fix when it does fix the need for agility quirks for some slower than average chassis and helps counter the BESM?

For example the Adder and Kit Fox would no longer need agility quirks to ensure they handle better than the Stormcrow since they are lighter and NEED to handle better to make up for the lack of firepower compared to the Stormcrow.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 January 2017 - 11:06 AM.

[AppleseeN]

Alan Davion, on 09 January 2017 - 11:04 AM, said:

A 37 litre engine?! What the hell kind of vehicle does that come from? There's no way in hell such an engine would fit in a Fiero. Have you ever looked at how small a Fiero is?

Are you sure you don't mean 3.7 litre? And a V12 at that? That's got to be the smallest damn V12 ever.

The biggest engine I've ever seen someone cram into a Fiero's engine bay was a 454 cubic inch, 7.5 litre V8 out of a Chevelle, and that pushed the limits of the Fiero's engine bay to the absolute limit, and there's been only one of those that I know of.

The more common engine conversions you'll see with a Fiero are 2.2 or 2.4 litre I4 engines out of cars like the Chevy Cobalt, which can be naturally aspirated, supercharged or turbocharged, 3.4 litre V6 DOHC engines from cars like the Chevy Monte Carlo, 3.8 litre V6 engines, with or without superchargers from cars like the Chevy Impala or Pontiac Grand Prix, 4.6 and 4.9 litre Cadillac engines, and LS series engines from old 350 CI LS1s all the way up to the LSX.

Nope))) I mean Rolls-Royce Griffon aircraft 37-littre v12 engine with 2,3k bhp, with 4-speed turbocharger litteraly)))
LOL-Yeah... it's doesn't fits Fiero (just take a look over what Fiero is, just in my country such car as Fiero would be rare as an white elephant... my first car was old BMW 650i from 1980 which I bough for 50$(was a big money some time on ex-Soviet Union area) on a scrapyard and repaired my self).

Edited by AppleseeN, 09 January 2017 - 11:20 AM.

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 January 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

How exactly is it a "crappy" quick fix when it does fix the need for agility quirks for some slower than average chassis and helps counter the BESM?

For example the Adder and Kit Fox would no longer need agility quirks to ensure they handle better than the Stormcrow since they are lighter and NEED to handle better to make up for the lack of firepower compared to the Stormcrow.

Why does BESM need countering?

Even simply taking into account a more modest case, ignoring the upper weight end entirely and STDs for a moment to make it as fair and innocuous as possible - going from a 250XL to a 300XL costs you three tons. Assuming a medium-weight 'Mech where you would be reasonably expected to otherwise debate this choice, that's three tons of heat sinks, armor, or ammunition you don't get and have to make up somehow. Using the Enforcer I'm staring at in Smurfy as a base, a 250 to 300 swap puts you from 81kph to 97kph.

Let's assume for the moment that everything this thread generally wants goes through, and that the 16kph increase in footspeed you've gotten from this swap and the two extra heat sink holes are the sole and singular benefits of this engine. You don't get a single drop of mobility. Your torso agility is entirely untouched. Your leg agility actually goes down because you're using the same turnspeeds applied to a higher top speed and so your ability to make sharp turns at speed is degraded. Your XL300 Enforcer does not have one single minuscule edge over an XL250 Enforcer with three extra tons of ammo, armor, and heat sinks, save for those sixteen klicks of footspeed.

Can you give me one worthwhile reason, beyond "I'm out of slots and an engine upgrade is the only way to make up my free weight", where paying those three tons for that sixteen klicks is a worthwhile investment on this machine?

And a three-ton premium is small compared to most such choices. Going from a 300XL to a 350XL on a bigger 'Mech runs you six and a half tons, not just three, for less overall speed boost than the 250-to-300 switch on a lighter 'Mech. A 300-to-350 switch on a Grasshopper, for instance - again, a place where someone might reasonably want to make that choice - nets a bit less than twelve klicks footspeed and two heat sink holes.

Who in their right mind would pay six and a half tons for slightly-less-than twelve klicks and two heat sink holes, with absolutely zero other benefits? That's most of a second/third autocannon, or an entire large laser, a heat sink, and change! If those six and a half tons offer you next to no reasonable benefit, why pay them?

Why does BESM need to be countered? Does not the sharp tonnage penalties of larger engines already offer enough drawback?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 09 January 2017 - 11:21 AM, said:

Your leg agility actually goes down because you're using the same turnspeeds applied to a higher top speed and so your ability to make sharp turns at speed is degraded.

When going the same speed, an Enforcer with a 250XL and a 300XL would be indistinguishable with regards to agility, the leg agility does NOT go down, you are just able to go faster to the point where your unable to turn as well. Stop misconstruing your argument to make it look worse than it is.

1453 R, on 09 January 2017 - 11:21 AM, said:

A 300-to-350 switch on a Grasshopper, for instance - again, a place where someone might reasonably want to make that choice - nets a bit less than twelve klicks footspeed and two heat sink holes.

Your XL300 Enforcer does not have one single minuscule edge over an XL250 Enforcer with three extra tons of ammo, armor, and heat sinks, save for those sixteen klicks of footspeed.

Who in their right mind would pay six and a half tons for slightly-less-than twelve klicks and two heat sink holes, with absolutely zero other benefits?

You say that like foot speed is pointless...the ability to reposition faster is not to be underestimated. Either way, it becomes more of a choice than it is now, where speed is too important to pass up.

That said, for energy boats you often save quite a bit of tonnage so often if you can find a way to squeeze an extra heat sink in, you are going to upgrade your engine to try and optimize your heat sink count as much as possible.

1453 R, on 09 January 2017 - 11:21 AM, said:

Why does BESM need countering?

Why does BESM need to be countered? Does not the sharp tonnage penalties of larger engines already offer enough drawback?

Because outside of the Whale days, it has been dominant since Closed Beta days of the Lunchback and Gaussapult? Do I not need another reason for trying to remove the fact that speed is too important of a factor in the meta? Considering anything that is slow like the Highlanders, Adders, Kit Foxes are considered junk without extensive quirks, yes. Hell even the Stalker is too slow these days (because the turret meta that the Whale brought along is gone).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 January 2017 - 11:35 AM.