1453 R, on 28 March 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:
Here's my question. Don't worry, I'm trying really hard to reign in my hellfire hatred for decoupling on this one, but nevertheless, a question:
What other system could be put in place that could accomplish some of these goals, without invalidating the existence of larger engines and making smaller engines de facto superior to larger ones?
#1 and #3 can be done with quirks, and if quirks are still an arbitrary crap system nobody really likes...well, the game is built on those anyways. The number of up-engined 'Mechs that decoupling savagely beats into obsolescence is much higher than the current number of under-engined 'Mechs struggling for viability.
Quirks can absolutely accomplish the goals, but they require direct and continuous input from PGI. The point of decoupling is to have at least some of that process be automated, reducing (but not eliminating by any means) our dependence on PGI having to go in and directly touch bad gundams.
I don't have any real faith in PGI's ability to touch bad gundams...at least not in any way that is beneficial. Most of their efforts end up hurting as much as helping if not more so...
1453 R, on 28 March 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:
I also question the desire for #2. Outside of my own confusion concerning the desire of players to go slow instead of going fast, which I've argued to no avail before, I'm not sure why taking a substantially smaller engine rating than your 'Mech is capable of should not be considered disadvantageous. Taking a larger engine near a 'Mech's cap produces a disadvantageous lack of firepower compared to smaller-engine'd machines - why should the machine with ten less tons in its engine not suffer some sort of handicap or weakness commensurate to the ten additional tons of weaponry and equipment it's able to equip?
You're making the assumption that the amount of tonnage spent on engine is equal to the amount of benefit you get. The truth of the matter is that it depends entirely on where you lie on the weight scale and which specific engine we're talking about.
The weight of engines follows a curve of diminishing returns. At the highest end of the scale (like 375+ range), you end up paying a lot for only a little gain. The issue is that on the lower end of the scale, you end up paying only a little for a large gain. On the really low end of the scale, trying to downgrade your engine for more firepower won't actually increase your firepower by any effective amount. The Cougar vs. Adder debate should make this pretty damn obvious.
A quick example is our friendly neighborhood Puma. He comes stock with an XL210 engine, yes? This engine weighs 10.5 tons when we account for the base 10 DHS needed. The XL225 engine weighs 11 tons when you count the external dub you need. You can literally pay for this upgrade just by removing the stock Flamer that all Pumas come with in the CT. Does that sound like the Puma is making any kind of sacrifice at all?
The sacrifice only kicks in once you start getting past 350 engines or so. Up until that point, it's more or less a direct upgrade instead of a sacrifice in many cases. If you mechlab min-max hard enough, you can even make the bigger engine mech have MORE firepower by virtue of saving slots on engine sinks, allowing you to mount more equipment and have better heat sustainability.
Something you're forgetting is that firepower is not unlimited. There are multiple factors that set a maximum cap on how much pewpew you can take. These factors are hardpoints, critical slots (especially on big mechs), heat (the biggest factor of all), and tonnage itself...The amount of weight you gain from that smaller engine doesn't always translate into an equally bigger gun.
Lowering your engine does not remove any of these "glass ceiling" firepower limits.
Your fear is making Option A better than Option B, but you are unknowingly preaching to preserve a system that just does the reserve and makes Option B better than Option A.
1453 R, on 28 March 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:
And finally...are we all able to agree at this point that the handful of folks predicting that Piranha would horribly mangle The Baseline™ in the face of everyone else's claims of inevitable near-perfection were more correct than not? The baselines established in Gas' linked post in the OP are all over the place, make no sense, do not at all respect the requirements of most of the 'Mechs in the game, and are so arbitrary and bizarre that it's one of the strongest pieces of evidence yet for the Dartboard of Destiny.
PGI screwing things up is always a big concern, but this also means that any kind of system we try to make to solve the problems I listed (see first part of this post) will also fail by definition. In other words, we're borked no matter what we do.
This should thus be treated as an academic discussion based on how things could be if PGI didn't PGI so hard. Otherwise, we might as well just give up now...
1453 R, on 28 March 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:
I know nobody wants to hear me talk about this anymore. But I'd still really like to know why people are so strongly of the opinion that Slow is and should rightly be universally better than Fast.
The problem is that the current system makes it so that
Fast is universally better than
Slow, even when you account for the "extra firepower" of the slow mech. The Dire Wolf says hello.
The point of decoupling is to try to equalize things.
Edited by FupDup, 28 March 2017 - 02:21 PM.
2
