476 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

Aegis Kleais™, on 03 May 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

It's why you never run solo if you can help, and you DIVERSIFY your lance. If a Scout is pestering your Assaults, send in the Medium and Light to take care of it. Like infantry and tanks, you never send in 1 without the other when you can help it.

Again, that's the problem. While it'd be possible to build a halfway decent dedicated anti-light medium, why would anyone ever, ever want to do that over a fast direct-fire heavy? What advantage would a medium possibly have at anti-light over a fast heavy armed with lasers or such?

People keep having this impression that Light = Fast, Medium = Less fast, Heavy = Slow, Assault = Very slow. While it is easier to make lighter 'mechs move faster it's very easy to end up with slow lights and pretty quick heavies; even assaults that move at a somewhat decent rate for what they are (64kph or higher isn't far out of the question). If we look at the listed medium defaults - the Centurion or Hunchback - why exactly are they better at hunting lights? In fact, of the heavies listed, the Catapult matches their speed and sports jets and the Dragon surpasses them.

Edited by Victor Morson, 03 May 2012 - 10:31 AM.

[Aegis Kleais]

Victor Morson, on 03 May 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

Again, that's the problem. While it'd be possible to build a halfway decent dedicated anti-light medium, why would anyone ever, ever want to do that over a fast direct-fire heavy? What advantage would a medium possibly have at anti-light over a fast heavy armed with lasers or such?

People keep having this impression that Light = Fast, Medium = Less fast, Heavy = Slow, Assault = Very slow. While it is easier to make lighter 'mechs move faster it's very easy to end up with slow lights and pretty quick heavies; even assaults that move at a somewhat decent rate for what they are (64kph or higher isn't far out of the question). If we look at the listed medium defaults - the Centurion or Hunchback - why exactly are they better at hunting lights? In fact, of the heavies listed, the Catapult matches their speed and sports jets and the Dragon surpasses them.

Most heavies can't go faster than 86K. Mediums can hit near 120+. Also, though it has yet to be confirmed, certain chassis might not be able to equip gear that is better suited to hunt down lights with.

[zorak ramone]

Aegis Kleais™, on 03 May 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

Most heavies can't go faster than 86K. Mediums can hit near 120+. Also, though it has yet to be confirmed, certain chassis might not be able to equip gear that is better suited to hunt down lights with.

To end speculation, here are the optimal (i.e. most weight remaining after engine/structure) weights for each speed bracket using the CBT construction rules.

With a Standard engine:
-53kph: 100 tons (Atlas!)
-64kph: 85 tons
-85kph: 60 tons (Dragon!)
-96kph: 50 tons
-117kph: 40 tons
-128kph: 35 tons

With an XL engine
-53kph: 100 tons (Atlas AS7-K)
-64kph: 95 tons (Banshee BNC-5S!)
-85kph: 75 tons (Madcat!)
-96kph: 60 tons (Dragon DRG-5K)
-117kph: 50 tons
-128kph: 40 tons

So basically, asside from advantages due to lower cost/BV, there's no reason to use a light untill you exceed speeds of 128 (8/12 movement). Furthermore, XL engines let pretty heavy mechs get to be pretty fast.

EDIT: also, there aren't a whole lot of mediums that hit speeds near 117 and 128 in stock configurations. I can only think of two: the Wraith and the Cicada. Most are 85kph, the fast ones are usually 96kph with JJs, and there are some slow ones even in the 3050+ era at 64kph. Bottom line is that unless massive engine modification is allowed, most medium mechs are not going to be outside the reach of heavies and some assaults by speed alone.

Edited by zorak ramone, 03 May 2012 - 01:21 PM.

[Aegis Kleais]

zorak ramone, on 03 May 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

To end speculation, here are the optimal (i.e. most weight remaining after engine/structure) weights for each speed bracket using the CBT construction rules.

With a Standard engine:
-53kph: 100 tons (Atlas!)
-64kph: 85 tons
-85kph: 60 tons (Dragon!)
-96kph: 50 tons
-117kph: 40 tons
-128kph: 35 tons

With an XL engine
-53kph: 100 tons (Atlas AS7-K)
-64kph: 95 tons (Banshee BNC-5S!)
-85kph: 75 tons (Madcat!)
-96kph: 60 tons (Dragon DRG-5K)
-117kph: 50 tons
-128kph: 40 tons

So basically, asside from advantages due to lower cost/BV, there's no reason to use a light untill you exceed speeds of 128 (8/12 movement). Furthermore, XL engines let pretty heavy mechs get to be pretty fast.

EDIT: also, there aren't a whole lot of mediums that hit speeds near 117 and 128 in stock configurations. I can only think of two: the Wraith and the Cicada. Most are 85kph, the fast ones are usually 96kph with JJs, and there are some slow ones even in the 3050+ era at 64kph. Bottom line is that unless massive engine modification is allowed, most medium mechs are not going to be outside the reach of heavies and some assaults by speed alone.

Now let's see how much of this actually transposes 1:1 into the game. My guess: not as much as people would think!

[Kudzu]

zorak ramone, on 03 May 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

EDIT: also, there aren't a whole lot of mediums that hit speeds near 117 and 128 in stock configurations. I can only think of two: the Wraith and the Cicada.

Off the top of my head the Dragonfly, Ice Ferret, and Assassin also meet that requirement.

[zorak ramone]

Aegis Kleais™, on 03 May 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Now let's see how much of this actually transposes 1:1 into the game. My guess: not as much as people would think!

If they use the engine weights of CBT, and calculate speed as function of engine rating, then it WILL translate 1:1.

Kudzu, on 03 May 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

Off the top of my head the Dragonfly, Ice Ferret, and Assassin also meet that requirement.

They do, you're right.

They'll need to change the stock configs of the Dragonfly and Assassin if they want them to be usefull. The Ice Ferret, on the other hand, would be a murder machine.

[Kudzu]

zorak ramone, on 03 May 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

They do, you're right.

They'll need to change the stock configs of the Dragonfly and Assassin if they want them to be usefull. The Ice Ferret, on the other hand, would be a murder machine.

Nice thing about Omni's is that you can change their loadout to whatever you'd like. The Assassin, however, was designed to be a fat light mech. It will be a lot better once they get physical attacks working (8 point kicks on a fast mech, it's a scout crippler) even with it's bad load out.

[MaddMaxx]

Which brings up a goods point about Engines. It appears they do not effect the BV of a Mech much and the installation of an XL reduces the BV significantly.

Anyone know why that is? Are not XL much better rated and be more costly, thus be worth more in BV versus way less? (or does the whole get killed easier in an XL factor in somehow?)

[Kudzu]

MaddMaxx, on 04 May 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Which brings up a goods point about Engines. It appears they do not effect the BV of a Mech much and the installation of an XL reduces the BV significantly.

Anyone know why that is? Are not XL much better rated and be more costly, thus be worth more in BV versus way less? (or does the whole get killed easier in an XL factor in somehow?)

Top speed is a factor, not engine size. The formula is Running MP + (1/2 Jumping MP), and then you look up a multiplier on a chart. A 4/6 Centurion (3025 era) would have a 1.12 multiplier, a 6/9 Centurion (3050 upgrade) would have a 1.50 multiplier. This reflects that a faster mech is able to use it's speed to be harder to hit.

IS XL adds a .5 engine modifier (much easier to kill), clan xl adds a .75 engine modifer (easier to kill but not as easy as IS).

[zorak ramone]

MaddMaxx, on 04 May 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Anyone know why that is? Are not XL much better rated and be more costly, thus be worth more in BV versus way less? (or does the whole get killed easier in an XL factor in somehow?)

Well if you just changed a mech's engine from standard to XL, and then did nothing, you have reduced the value of the mech, as the XL engine is more vulnerable to damage.

Thing is, people don't just upgrade to XL and do nothing. Its all the extra stuff that you add with free tonnage that massively increases the BV of an XL engine mech.

[Yeach]

How about BOTH tonnage and C-bills/BV?

Say the matches are first restricted to tonnage.
Players take appropriate mechs to meet the tonnage (or less)
Then the players CHOOSE their mech variant that goes under the allotted BV / C-bill value.

Lets arbitraily assume PPCs are much more expensive/higher BV than AC2 and the Catapult can carry them.
Your team chooses the tonnage and you choose the Catapult to meet the requirement.
However after all the C-bills/BV is calculated it is found that if you choose your PPC variant, you would go over the alloted BV value;
You have to choose the AC2 version.
Thus you are still able to choose your Mech but have to use a different variants to meet the alloted BV/ C-bill value.

And although that example seems very restrictive, you could have talked with your teammates instead of loading up on PPC Catapults; that some other them choose AC2 versions instead.

[Siilk]

Not bad but it seems to be overly restrictive.

[MaddMaxx]

zorak ramone, on 04 May 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

Well if you just changed a mech's engine from standard to XL, and then did nothing, you have reduced the value of the mech, as the XL engine is more vulnerable to damage.

Thing is, people don't just upgrade to XL and do nothing. Its all the extra stuff that you add with free tonnage that massively increases the BV of an XL engine mech.

That seems counter intuitive to a system that seems to prefer that better things cost more BV, at least for almost every other thing that can be mounted on a Mech it seems.

Why is it that when you swap, and free up all that space (50% weight), does the XL engine cost less over-all BV, all the while providing the same power, walk/run values of a Std. engine?

[RedDragon]

MaddMaxx, on 07 May 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

That seems counter intuitive to a system that seems to prefer that better things cost more BV, at least for almost every other thing that can be mounted on a Mech it seems.

Why is it that when you swap, and free up all that space (50% weight), does the XL engine cost less over-all BV, all the while providing the same power, walk/run values of a Std. engine?

Because just changing from normal Fusion to XL brings you NO benefits, on the contrary, it makes your mech more vulnerable since you have engine-crits in the side torsos. Only when you use the space freed by a XL-engine your BV goes up. I.e. You have more tonnage left to add equipment that raises your BV, and this way your XL-engine adds more BV, it's just indirectly.

[Belisarius1]

MaddMaxx, on 07 May 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

That seems counter intuitive to a system that seems to prefer that better things cost more BV, at least for almost every other thing that can be mounted on a Mech it seems.

Why is it that when you swap, and free up all that space (50% weight), does the XL engine cost less over-all BV, all the while providing the same power, walk/run values of a Std. engine?

Because XL engines make you die very, very quickly.

Yeach, on 06 May 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

How about BOTH tonnage and C-bills/BV?

Tonnage and bv in-lobby is overkill, because you can easily merge them into each other. If big 'mechs are good, they just cost more BV by the mere fact that they're big.

I'm personally willing to hope that the game is designed well enough that speed is important. Something like a point capture system (which seems to be in judging by comments in the recent IGN piece) immediately gives a spectrum of value from light through to assault, provided those 'mechs are moving at good speeds for their weight class.

The poor step children in this equation are 'mechs like the hunchback, which are not using their weight class's full capacity and so end up doing the same job as an assault with less armour and less weaponry. If you want to save the hunchback, both tonnage and BV can be tailored to fix the problem. Doing both separately is unnecessary, especially when C-bills are a metagame restriction as well.

Edited by Belisarius†, 07 May 2012 - 10:56 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

Belisarius†, on 07 May 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Because XL engines make you die very, very quickly.

Sorry, again, but if you save 50% of your engine weight in the swap, could you not increase your speed and become much harder to hit?

[Kudzu]

MaddMaxx, on 08 May 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

Sorry, again, but if you save 50% of your engine weight in the swap, could you not increase your speed and become much harder to hit?

You certainly can, but that speed increase bumps up your BV. Remember the modifiers I showed your earlier?

For example:
3025 Centurion-- 945 BV
3050 Centurion -- 1130 BV (Endo Steel, XL engine with speed boost: 4/6 to 6/9, LB-10X AC, Artemis FCS for the LRM 10

3025 Awesome-- 1605 BV
3050 Awesome-- 1812 BV (XL engine with speed boost 3/5 to 4/6, PPC's to ERPPC's, two Streak-2 missiles, Medium Pulse, Small Pulse, DHS)

The 3050 upgrades certainly have advantages over the 3025 mechs (and these are payed for in BV), but they are also much easier to kill overall with the addition of XL engines.

Edited by Kudzu, 08 May 2012 - 11:03 AM.

[Belisarius1]

MaddMaxx, on 08 May 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

Sorry, again, but if you save 50% of your engine weight in the swap, could you not increase your speed and become much harder to hit?

You're missing the point. If you use the weight that's freed up to do other things, like upgrade the engine or add weapons or armour or whatever, the added value is coming from those things, not the XL itself.

If you simply change a 4/6 standard engine to a 4/6 XL and do nothing else, leaving your 'mech under-tonned, the XL 'mech has lower value than the standard.

Multiple people have explained this to you multiple times.

Edited by Belisarius†, 08 May 2012 - 06:47 PM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

I think we can all agree to disagree, no balancing mechanic will be perfect.
Its just not possible, what we should be looking for is the lesser of all evils.

[MaddMaxx]

Belisarius†, on 08 May 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Multiple people have explained this to you multiple times.

If only really.

BV is lower when saving 50% of the engines weight because you can die easier, or can add more stuffs... OK, I think I got it now.