1453 R, on 21 February 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:
Follow-up question: would you consider it an acceptable state of affairs if you turned out to be incorrect? If small-engine 'Mechs were significantly more common than large-engine 'Mechs, and larger engines were considered to be a 'noob trap' or a holdover from days when BESM existed?
No. I feel that's a VERY unlikely outcome, however, given the incredible impact speed has on maneuverability in combat.
With that said, you should probably quantify what you feel are "small engined mechs" and "large engined mechs"; as well, what qualifies as a "middle of the road" engine.
I think there's a very high probability that at least 1/3, probably as many as 1/2 or even a bit more may tend towards "midrange" engines - think 300 rated engines in a 65t heavy. I think there's a very strong probability that you won't see many 350-400 rated engines barring some laser boat assaults (but that's often the case now for >375 rated engines) but you'll ALSO see few <250 rated engines. 250-350 being the most common engines fielded between mediums to assaults seems pretty damn reasonable to me. Lights will likely *always* use the largest engines they can, at least in any serious builds.
I suspect you'll only find <300 rated engines on heavies in cases like the Jagermech and Rifleman, who want to maximize heavy ballistic usage as a rule of thumb.
Quote
I'm honestly unconvinced on the final point. People are so damn ecstatic about this change that I'm more than half convinced that they do not, as a general rule, enjoy or desire battles of maneuver or movement. Many folks are obsessed with drastically reducing the mobility of assault and heavy 'Mechs, and even many mediums. Nobody has even begun to suggest that perhaps maybe...just maybe...the mobility being stripped away from the engine should be available, at least in part, elsewhere for an opportunity cost - since spending multiple tons on it is not enough of an opportunity cost.
Who, exactly, is having so much fun going fast and being mobile that they're absolutely giddy with excitement to see it going away?
See, you're making so many utterly bu****it assumptions here that it makes my head hurt. Just because people want to see this happen doesn't mean they don't like movement and maneuver in their battles. People don't want to drop 250 rated engines on their atlases.
What we DO want is small (and for that matter, more midrange) engines to be a more valid choice than they are right now. The tradeoffs to going smaller with your engine now are too steep. Decoupling agility reduces the loss in downgrading your engine.
You're assuming that everyone else is wants this bizarre "worst case scenario" you propose. Nobody wants that. Nobody is asking for that. I don't know where you're getting these things from, but I'm not seeing it in this thread from anyone but you.
In fact; if things ended up as you seem to think people want (massive agility nerfs across the board, essentially), I think 100% of players would be up in arms about that. Nobody wants all mechs to be lumbering, clumsy oafs, and there's indeed no reason for that to be the outcome.