64 replies to this topic

[The Cheese]

[EDMW]CSN, on 15 March 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

Yes it is the player's choice if they want a medium speed AC-20 with a larger hit box.
But said mech still packs 19 tons of armor vs the Hunchies 10 tons of armor and better heat sinking.

And another reason why I do not wish to see such modifications is because it throws engine speeds out of whack. Can you imagine the havoc of a XL 400 engine Atlas that is underweight ? That would be easily 70 kph Atlas or even push 80 kph.

This would just be a matter of the devs doing their maths right so people couldn't abuse it. A kind of 'diminishing returns' system could make the things that you're concerned about just go away.

Also, an Atlas would have to shed some serious weight to pull 80kph. It is going to lose armour, weapons, heatsinks, or all of the above. Again, we're back to an oversized hunchback situation.

Edited by The Cheese, 15 March 2012 - 08:57 PM.

[EDMW CSN]

LordDeathStrike, on 15 March 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

if im going to heavily modify an atlas, it isnt going to be for speed, ild drop the ac 20 for a pair of ac 5's and ammo, then ild use saved weight on upgrading to large lasers and heat sinks and my srm would become another lrm. now at 600-800m im a nightmare with lrms large lasers and ac 5s and enough heat sinks to keep the pressure on with 19 tons of heavy armor and ams.

Well the issue is people trying to deliberately make underweight mechs to move faster. Yes it might be hilarious to see a 50 ton Swayback with no AC-20, no extra HS and 2 med laser and 1 small running faster than a Commando.....

But i rather not see that happen.

The Cheese, on 15 March 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

This would just be a matter of the devs doing their maths right so people couldn't abuse it. A kind of 'diminishing returns' system could make the things that you're concerned about just go away.

I would prefer the Devs put the entire idea at least at the bottom of the list. Weapon balancing, mech fine tuning and mech lab, the modules are far more important.

Even then I play EVE. I have flown ships that are not even fully loaded and they don't go any faster either !

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 15 March 2012 - 08:59 PM.

[Trogusaur]

[EDMW]CSN, on 15 March 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

The thing is, the Hunchback is going at 65kph, 11 kph faster than an Atlas. And it using a smaller rated 200 power engine.
An Atlas is using a 300 rated power engine. A Zeus which is 80 tons, does the same speed of a Hunchback but it is using a 320 rated engine.

So in theory, if the Atlas can chip off slightly more than 20 tons, it would match the Hunchback and it is pretty damn easy to do so. The LRM-20 and its ammo is 12 tons, the SRM6 and ammo is 4 tons. Drop off 5 heatsinks and you got a total of 21 tons free.

And a mech that might be slightly slower than the Hunchback by give or take 2 to 3 kph. But packs better close range firepower, better heat dissipation (overheats only if it fires all 4 medium lasers with AC-20) and packing 19 tons of armor ! So this idea should never come into play !!

Engines are the one that push the mech's speed, structure does count for a bit but not much.

You have a valid argument here, but the Atlas is a 100 ton mech, should it not be entitled to overpower other 'mechs? an LRM 20 and SRM 6 are both a big deal when talking about firepower. As compared to another stock Atlas, this variant would be hard pressed to win in a fight with it, even considering the increase in speed. It would be impossible to circle strafe effectively (even with such an opportunity) against the full 100 tonner because of the ridiculous hitboxes, but may avoid some damage from speed alone. In the end, things would even out.

The Atlas is a legendary avatar of the battlefield, also known to be quicker than the average 'mech its size. Is it not entitled to be fast too?

Edited by Lord Trogus, 15 March 2012 - 09:19 PM.

[devilkit]

How about this as a FAIR game mechanic restriction

Lets say that all mechs have their walking/running/movement rates were determined at their full weight capacity. Depending on their original MAX tonnage freeing up extra tons of weight has different % bonus modifiers or multipliers for certain weight classes of Mechs to a FINITE- meaning you can shed 50 tons off your Atlus but your only going to get bonuses ONLY for 20 total tons removed. This would still force a player to 'arm up' to a certain amount- but they can still 'take away' enough to get some boost.

Theoretical (and hastilly) put together table and example

*Per full ton from max capacity*

Mech | Arm Aim speed | Top Speed | Max Allowed |
Light | +2% | +0.5 | +10% aim, +20 speed
Medium | +1.5% | +0.4 | +8% aim +15 speed
Heavy | +1% | +0.3 | +5% aim +10 speed
Assult | +.5% | +0.25 | +2.5% aim +10 speed

Again this is a crude game play mechanic broken down as simple as possible without un needed over complication- i.e. what if I added more 'gear' to my arms making them 'heavier' than default but I still weigh less overall- again thats going FURTHER into the game mechanic- one which has might not even be in the game =)

Also interesting fact- Combat Aircraft have a 'max take off' payload and an absolute 'maximum weight' the difference between the two is that an aircraft can be loaded up on as much ordinance as possible with as little feul to get me airborne and stay in the air to perform mid-air refueling- then get to near maximum weight capacity and bomb the hell out of my target/loiter above the battle zone.

Prime example, my aircraft has a total of 30,000 lbs of take off capacity- this includes flight crew, feul, ordinance. I load up on 28,000 lbs of ordinance saving only 1,400 lbs of feul for take off and to perform mid-air refueling. My internal and external feul tanks have a total capcity of 20,000 lbs. I can then feul up to max and perform my mission.

In regards that expending ordinance improves maneuverability/speed that is a fact, in WWII there was a medium/light bomber that after it expended its bomb load could engage hostile enemy fighters and in fact scored several air to air kills- the model of the bomber eludes me. . . It might have been the A-20 but I can't quite remember and I forgot which documentary I was watching to look it up.

Otherwise speaking I agree with some of the previous things said, this is not the tabletop, this is not MW4, this is a new mechwarrior game- there are bound to be many elements we will enjoy or hate about the game and it will even fail at delivering some mech-sim like game mechanics. But one thing is for damn sure- I want to jump in and see some scarred Mech hulks from combat and blowing off limbs already!

Edited for misspelling

Edited by devilkit, 16 March 2012 - 11:20 AM.

[Claive]

Lord Trogus, on 15 March 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

I really like what TheRulesLawyer had to say about progressively increasing speed as the 'mech burns through ammo and armor. This also supports the idea of decreasing weight, because the 'mechs will constantly offload those autocannon and projectile shells, making the chassis just a little bit lighter. I would like to see a very small increment of top speed gained for every tenth of a ton that leaves a Battlemech loses (on or off the field). It should never trump the speed increased from an engine upgrade, but I think something should be implemented to acknowledge that a critted, ammo depleted Atlas weighs less than a fully stocked, fresh one.

Seconded. The idea of "lightening the load" through firing off batteries of missiles is... explosive...