306 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

This thread is so much fail... and still brings lots of it from the OP.

From a mech building/construction perspective... due to how heat is generated.. you have to invest in one of two things (ideally both)... engine (speed) or DHS.

Regardless of how many weapons you boat, if you don't have enough cooling, you have to stop firing it. Sustainability is what make AC/UAC dakkaboats require. You can't laservomit all day w/o heatsinks... let alone PPC+Gauss.

For mechs that primarily do hit and run (or even peeking), you do need some level of engine speed to make the movements possible.. where speed is primarily used to get to brawling range and getting in and out (or for Lights to run away) and the respective agility from the engines to properly torso twist the damage to sections of your choice.

While some mechs may have an ideal engine like the Hunchback-4G running smaller slower engines, you'll still end up wanting to run the largest engine as reasonably possible.

I don't remember the best way to store that last ton of AC20 ammo (was thinking of halves in the CT and/or leg):
HBK-4G

Also, that Gauss build that was referenced early is shamefully bad (like, seriously?).

I'm no mechlab genius, but the priorities of each build depends on what the focus on... and inevitable both heatsinks and/or larger engines come into play all the time, whenever possible. While noone necessarily needs or wants a Timberwolf's super large engine, it's still an asset and NOT a detriment to have a large engine (hell, even Mr. Gargles these days are a thing) if you can make the most of that agility.


I feel that this entire discussion of this thread is based on a foundationally flawed understanding of the mechlab, engines, and what actually good builds look like.


It's not that complex really... except for our balance overlord... because apparently what is on the PTS has balance achieved (if you don't get the obvious sarcasm for this last statement, I don't know how to help you).

[1453 R]

Deathlike, on 02 March 2017 - 11:32 PM, said:

...
I feel that this entire discussion of this thread is based on a foundationally flawed understanding of the mechlab, engines, and what actually good builds look like.
...

All right. Except we still have statements like this one, in this thread and in many others:

Wintersdark, on 02 March 2017 - 11:12 PM, said:

...
Still, going slower will be a viable choice, and that's a good thing.
...

That's what I don't get. I don't understand why folks consider the ability to go butt-clenchingly soul-wiltingly blood-curdlingly slow and not get spanked for it by much faster 'Mechs to be of benefit to MWO as a whole. Everyone is so tremendously eager for this change, even after seeing it go up in PTS2 here and be a nigh-unmitigated catastrophe, and I just cannot make the connection between statements like "big engines will still be really awesome, don't worry this doesn't break anything" and "going super slow will be completely and totally viable and a thing lots of people will be able to do now".

The two cannot both be true simultaneously. Big engines are either desirable or they are not desirable. Current opinion seems to be that players wish for big engines to be not desirable. I wish for big engines to be desirable. My wish for big engines to be desirable has landed me on ignore lists and just about gotten me soft-banned from the forums because everyone else is convinced I'm an idiot for wanting higher engine ratings to actually mean something.

Deathlike, on 02 March 2017 - 11:32 PM, said:

...
It's not that complex really... except for our balance overlord... because apparently what is on the PTS has balance achieved (if you don't get the obvious sarcasm for this last statement, I don't know how to help you).

What, this isn't what everyone wanted? The current PTS is not flawless perfection given virtual form?

Huh. How strange. I seem to recall folks constantly telling me that once ST PTS2 went up everything would be absolutey picture-perfect and I'd be shown to be the bitter and wrongheaded hussy I clearly am. Hmm...wonder if Piranha got the memo...

Edited by 1453 R, 03 March 2017 - 08:27 AM.

[Deathlike]

1453 R, on 03 March 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

All right. Except we still have statements like this one, in this thread and in many others:



That's what I don't get. I don't understand why folks consider the ability to go butt-clenchingly soul-wiltingly blood-curdlingly slow and not get spanked for it by much faster 'Mechs to be of benefit to MWO as a whole. Everyone is so tremendously eager for this change, even after seeing it go up in PTS2 here and be a nigh-unmitigated catastrophe, and I just cannot make the connection between statements like "big engines will still be really awesome, don't worry this doesn't break anything" and "going super slow will be completely and totally viable and a thing lots of people will be able to do now".

The two cannot both be true simultaneously. Big engines are either desirable or they are not desirable. Current opinion seems to be that players wish for big engines to be not desirable. I wish for big engines to be desirable. My wish for big engines to be desirable has landed me on ignore lists and just about gotten me soft-banned from the forums because everyone else is convinced I'm an idiot for wanting higher engine ratings to actually mean something.

Let me explain this to you and I hope not to repeat it.

In MW4, engines weren't tied to the mech's agility. It was considered a good idea for many reasons. There's still very little reason to use the slowest speeds nor using the fastest speeds possible. That in itself is pointless and isn't a discussion point. What happens is in the middle... where you have the option to trade firepower or armor (or some combination) for speed. That is what happens when doing good builds with ANY mech (good or bad).\

You assert that there will be a legit reason to go above 250. We have been telling you the same effing thing that in what I've just explained in MW4 is literally no different from what happens with mech building in MWO. The difference is that agility for whatever absurd reason makes what should be a legit engine (though stock engines tends to suck) to be less than effective in MWO.

When Victors were an actual meta (back in the PPC poptart era), the Victor would have been perfectly fine had it had greater fixed agility... as going faster in it was actually a lot more beneficial (even despite the godawful Atlas-like agility nerf). If it had fixed agility... the standard stock engine wouldn't be the same hindrance than the faster XL equivalent would have been.

That's the whole point.

Quote

What, this isn't what everyone wanted? The current PTS is not flawless perfection given virtual form?

Huh. How strange. I seem to recall folks constantly telling me that once ST PTS2 went up everything would be absolutey picture-perfect and I'd be shown to be the bitter and wrongheaded hussy I clearly am. Hmm...wonder if Piranha got the memo...

I don't listen to the fools that yes-man to every and all PGI's "results". That's what's more likely going to get this game doomed than anything else.

If you're expecting our balance overlord or whoever is working on this to get it right, you'll be looking forward to 2020 as the future landmark for an RIP.

The concept of a skill tree is not an issue... it's really about how it is implemented. Not even PGI understands what the other hand is doing, and hence while like a student that NEVER asks questions and/or gets help and/or gets tutors, it will continue to repeat the class and fail projects because it thinks it knows best and tries to claim 2 + 2 = 5. That's where we've gotten to. I shouldn't need to keep repeating myself, but here we are.. knowing that implementing something this conceptually simple... still requires actual hard work... and yet mistakes were made and repeated again.

We're doomed to repeat history... again.

[Kmieciu]

VonBruinwald, on 21 February 2017 - 11:52 AM, said:

Does that mean Urbies with STD60s are going to become the new meta, because that I want to see...

They won't because not enough crit space for DHS+endo+ferro.
Battletech construction rules severely punish small engine mechs. Wouldn't it be better for all engines to contain 10 internal heatsinks?

[Baulven]

Wintersdark, on 02 March 2017 - 05:20 PM, said:

Post builds before an after. I'd like to see how much speed you lost, and specifically what the cooling levels are.

Because if you're running a mad iic with a 200, well... What did you gain?

Also: for IS this doesn't really work as well. 3 slot DHS don't fit by engines, feet, etc; that's space Endo can use while DHS can't. Even without Endo, IS has very little space that can be devoted to DHS without a large engine.

I dropped it from a 390 to 340 cooling went from 1.17 to 1.22 I might have been able to maximize it by switching to a 350 for the extra slot since it isn't much tonnage (I didn't crunch numbers significantly for this change up). I can tell yoy the movement profile was a whole lot better going 64.8 versus 78.6 though, since it actually felt like I was at least somewhat agile instead of turning a third slower than my speed was working at.

[Sjorpha]

A very good thing about this is that people might actually have to learn slowing down for sharp turns and not just use max speed all the time, more simmy.

[Wintersdark]

Sjorpha, on 06 March 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

A very good thing about this is that people might actually have to learn slowing down for sharp turns and not just use max speed all the time, more simmy.

I like it a lot. Higher piloting skill ceiling makes piloting more fun.

I cry for 100t assaults, because without mobility skills they are horrible, but on the other hand being forced into the agility tree reduces what other stuff they can take, basically the "con" to packing the most firepower and armor. It's not good overall for them IMHO, but... Eh. It's not a showstopper either.

Baulven, on 06 March 2017 - 05:24 AM, said:

I dropped it from a 390 to 340 cooling went from 1.17 to 1.22 I might have been able to maximize it by switching to a 350 for the extra slot since it isn't much tonnage (I didn't crunch numbers significantly for this change up). I can tell yoy the movement profile was a whole lot better going 64.8 versus 78.6 though, since it actually felt like I was at least somewhat agile instead of turning a third slower than my speed was working at.

Still a 14kph drop, close to a quarter of your new speed. That's a significant trade-off.

But yeah, at the 375-400 level the tonnage paid for speed is very high. Those are edge case engines, much like mounting a 125-150 engine.

It's a lot different when you're looking at 300 to 250. Same speed loss, but way less tonnage gained.