Jump to content

Engine Decoupling And Engine To Tonnage Ratio


162 replies to this topic

#161 process

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Star Colonel II
  • Star Colonel II
  • 1,667 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 09:00 AM

View PostVanillaG, on 30 March 2017 - 08:39 AM, said:

As a general rule mechs of the same tonnage have similar agility profiles with slight deviations and the heavier the mech the less agility it has. So for your Urbanmech example it will have similar agility to other 35 ton mechs and will be more agile than a 50 mech with the same engine.


This is why, despite how PGI may fumble the system initially, I am strongly in favor of the concept of decoupling.

Step 1: normalize mech agility by tonnage; in general, lighter mechs should be more agile.

Step 2: within each weight bracket, tweak agility stats per chassis to provide unique characteristics. Basically integrated quirks.

#162 William Mountbank

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 671 posts
  • LocationBayern

Posted 30 March 2017 - 12:43 PM

View PostWidowmaker1981, on 30 March 2017 - 02:09 AM, said:


Yes.

They will also get oneshot by the first person to see them, because 35 kph light mechs are an extremely poor idea, however fast they twist.


The party doesn't start till the dial says 34.8!

#163 Insanity09

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • 551 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 09:47 PM

I fail to understand the basic logic behind this.
the short version...
If the desire, at some level, is simply to not discourage players from the choice of using a smaller engine, fine, I suggest one simple change to this proposed system:
Make this proposed standard agility for a mech variant the minimum turn/acc/dec rate. If I put in a larger engine, I should still get improved nimbleness. If I choose to use a smaller engine, I'm not penalized except for the mech speed.

The longer version...
To date....
Having a bigger engine, traditionally, has meant legs moving faster which meant more nimbleness as well as speed. That makes perfect sense, intuitively and logically. (* by nimbleness/agility, I mean turning speed and acc/deceleration)
Certain mechs have been considered more agile, and have thus gotten additional turning/accel/decel quirks to account for that.
As an overall method, this has made good sense to date.
(whether all these baselines and quirks have been false front red quirks or not is irrelevant)

So, now, engine size will no longer affect nimbleness. All mechs of a given class will start with a specific agility, which could be improved for specific variants, theoretically matching where relevant quirks have traditionally been given.
But... I can no longer make my mech more agile by plugging in a better engine?
Logically and intuitively that makes no sense.

True, the new skill system may allow you upgrade a given mechs agility (maybe), but that is no different from the old (current) method. That also doesn't allow me to make the choice to be more nimble than average without building up some spec point for a mech, thus effectively harming new mechs (and new players in particular).
Why do I feel like I feel like I'm being shortchanged for putting in a larger than "normal" engine? And somehow rewarded for a "smaller" engine?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users