64 replies to this topic

[SnowDragon]

The Cheese, on 15 March 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

Only legit if you haven't thought about it.

It's the power to weight ratio that we're really looking at here. A downgraded engine will presumably produce less power, but will be lighter. The power to weight ratio will differ a little, and the top speed would be calculated accordingly.

By your logic,, you should get slower when you install a bigger engine, just because it's heavier. You're completely forgetting about the extra power that you're getting which will cover the weight change.

Whoops, Reall I didn't think that one through. Good call.

[RecklessFable]

zverofaust, on 15 March 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

Except Mechs aren't racecars and that's not how it works in the real world. You shouldn't be rewarded for inefficient use of space.

Actually, I've done some work as an extra pair of hands with amateur race teams. The first thing we do with a stock car is strip out the extra weight to gain more speed and agility. It helps with braking too.

Now the argument that the mech's frame might not allow more speed has some validity, but nothing in the real world is ever built to have exactly zero ability to move faster while moving less mass unless you are building something that is purposely dedicated to moving a certain speed, which is irrelevant to mechs.

There would be limits to max speed due to the mech-muscle-bundles contraction speed limits (which don't improve with exercise) and it probably isn't worth doing the calculations for the developers to bother implementing... but zero speed benefit is not supported by real-world logic or physics.

Namwons, on 15 March 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

If I downgrade my engine for extra weight...I should gain speed...no thanx

There is a balance point there, the downgraded engine produces less power for motion. However, a lighter engine producing the same power would be faster.

In the end, folks demand there be no speed difference are either hidebound to the tabletop rules or just don't want to deal with the possibility of exploits (or maybe don't want more complexity). But physics does not back up the reasoning.

[RecklessFable]

Applejack, on 15 March 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

My opinion is that you should not be allowed to build 'Mechs that don't fill their tonnage. Defies the whole weight scheme if you build an Atlas that is only 50 tons. Same deal if you build an Atlas that is 99.5 tons. You can always do something with half a ton, you can DEFINITELY do something with 50 tons. 'Mechs that don't live up to their potential should not be allowed on the battlefield.

At least here we have a gameplay argument. Chances are, if you are under-arming your Atlas you are hurting your team. Granted, you could say the same thing for the all machine gun build. Not sure how that would be enforced, but like griefing, it should probably be left to a in-match vote system.

[Trogusaur]

Applejack, on 15 March 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

My opinion is that you should not be allowed to build 'Mechs that don't fill their tonnage. Defies the whole weight scheme if you build an Atlas that is only 50 tons. Same deal if you build an Atlas that is 99.5 tons. You can always do something with half a ton, you can DEFINITELY do something with 50 tons. 'Mechs that don't live up to their potential should not be allowed on the battlefield.

The problem I see with this is now you are imposing rules on what you would like to see, not what makes sense. I can't believe I am using this analogy, but many leggers and jump snipers get upset over people berating their controversial tactics because they feel others want to take away from strategies that the rules allow. Same applies here. Just because you don't want others to strip down their 'mechs doesn't negate the fact that logic and physics are on the other side of the argument. It is hard to embrace a change like this when the other games never imagined anything like this, but this one is a very small one, and I doubt it will carry effect over what people choose.

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.

Edited by Lord Trogus, 15 March 2012 - 03:53 PM.

[The Cheese]

SnowDragon, on 15 March 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

Whoops, Reall I didn't think that one through. Good call.

I think my "haven't thought about it" came across a with a little more edge than I intended. Apologies, sir, I didn't mean to cause offence.

[SnowDragon]

Nah, it's good. I didn't get cut by any edge.

This arguement has two sides. The realistic side (Lighter mechs make for faster mechs) And the BT side (You can't/shouldn't be able to build a emch without enough tonnage). We'll probably just have to wait until the beta before we see any end this this fight.

[sirjackinthebox]

If you take for example a 70T mech you strip it down leaving nothing but a large pulse laser on it the engine is rated to push 70 tons no matter so its not actually gonna be pushing 70T its gonna be pushing much less at a better rate, so yeah faster and yes their gonna be able to run circles around those that choose to go full weight but the full weight is gonna have far more armor.. its gonna balance out so whats the problem..

[Trogusaur]

Also note that a pilot will still shorthand himself in terms of funds by running a stripped 'mech, rather just a lighter one. You are still paying for extra weapons that won't be featured on the 'mech, and engine upgrades would still have greater effect than simply stripping tonnage. You are also taking away from firepower or armor the 'mech would normally have, and heavier 'mechs tend to have much bigger hitboxes than their ligher counterparts. It is still inefficient to use a heavy 'mech as a scout. This too would give some diversity rather than 70% of all the 'mechs on the field running 64.8 kph (anyone else notice how many run at that speed?)

[TeaL3af]

Applejack, on 15 March 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

My opinion is that you should not be allowed to build 'Mechs that don't fill their tonnage. Defies the whole weight scheme if you build an Atlas that is only 50 tons. Same deal if you build an Atlas that is 99.5 tons. You can always do something with half a ton, you can DEFINITELY do something with 50 tons. 'Mechs that don't live up to their potential should not be allowed on the battlefield.

To be honest, very few people will have weight left over. As long as engine upgrades are more efficent for gaining speed you'll have trouble not getting very close to the weight limit no matter what mech you are going for. I just tried building a hit-and-run Uziel in MW4mercs and tried to maximize leftover weight: 2 ER PPCs, 8 heat sinks, maxed engine (5 tons), 8 tons of armour (default). I had just 5.5 tons left over, which wouldn't provide much of a speed boost.

In the end it doesn't really matter much either way, the bonus will only be significant if you strip your mech down to near-uselessness. I like the realism, but I don't see why anyone would actually strip down anything other than a light mech (to outrun scout hunters).

Edited by TeaL3af, 15 March 2012 - 04:17 PM.

[HighlandWolf]

I've always thought the games should have gone by the books and since theyre using modules i cannot see why they dont in MWO, since we are able to change our loadouts to different weapons there is the likelihood that we can and will come in under normal tonnage so a 100 ton mech isnt a 100 its 90, you should be able to either add 10 extra tons of armour..more heatsinks or just go with 90 and have a mech that can run faster, walk faster rotate/turn quicker, it would be less of a burden on the engine but also makes you more prone to being knocked over by a hard hit as youre lighter?
plus, since modules are going to be in effect..we can certainly come in under weight eg. you have a mech that normally has LRM 20's, but you scrap those in favour of energy weapons..you have all that weight saved from no ammo..you should be able to modify the mech or just run lighter right?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

It's more a case of whether the dev's are willing to program it in.If the Mechlab doesn't allow for engine swaps then a chassis will have a set speed. It may be that it wont let you produce a mech that is under weight by any great ammount. I think we need to wait for next month when were supposed to find out what the mechlab does.

[Fecal]

The arguments here against a boost in speed or agility are pretty ridiculous.

If you take a fat guy (or a big rig) and sheer off all of the excess weight but maintain their muscle strength, they will go faster but not become a sprinter as a result. Just as different types and placements of muscles are meant for specific purposes, you would assume mechs and their engines are built for a specific ratio of speed and power according to their chassis. Cutting weight will not change that ratio, so instead of a sprinter mech you would end up with a slight increase in speed and (potentially) a more significant increase in acceleration.

To design a sprinter or a fast mech the design of the entire chassis, especially the legs, would have to be taken into account. A Daishi / Atlas is not mechanically built to have legs that move faster than a certain speed. If anything there would be a computer system in place to limit the top speed in order to not damage components from unintended use.

And cutting weight should definitely affect jump jets. It just all has to be done realistically and there won't be a problem.

Edit: Thinking about this from a gameplay perspective, one way to prevent people from abusing any advantage of a slightly-quickened Atlas would be to treat the mech as 100 tons or Assault class (its full weight) when there are drop limits / category limit calculations. You would not want your assault slot taken up by some speedy heavily armored thing with only two medium lasers.

Edited by Fecal, 15 March 2012 - 05:58 PM.

[TeaL3af]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 15 March 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

It's more a case of whether the dev's are willing to program it in.If the Mechlab doesn't allow for engine swaps then a chassis will have a set speed. It may be that it wont let you produce a mech that is under weight by any great ammount. I think we need to wait for next month when were supposed to find out what the mechlab does.

It should be trivial to program. It's just a very simple math operation, could be something like:

Bonus = (1 - UsedTonnage/Tonnage) * MaximumBonus

Where Tonnage is spare tonnage, excluding the weight of the bare chassis, and UsedTonnage is the amount of this used.Then:

Speed = Bonus * BaseSpeed

Where BaseSpeed is the speed after engine upgrades are applied.

All these numbers should already be in the game or can easily be calculated.

Edited by TeaL3af, 15 March 2012 - 06:50 PM.

[EDMW CSN]

I vote no. Because if releasing up more tonnage means more speed, what is stopping an Atlas being as mobile as a Hunchback then ?
Strip the SRM6 and LRM20. Removing the extra heatsinks and that is a lot of tonnage freed.

[KaiserSoze]

If I end up with two extra tons i rather have 2 medium laser then run 3% kph faster, its not worth it....

[Trogusaur]

[EDMW]CSN, on 15 March 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

I vote no. Because if releasing up more tonnage means more speed, what is stopping an Atlas being as mobile as a Hunchback then ?
Strip the SRM6 and LRM20. Removing the extra heatsinks and that is a lot of tonnage freed.

The devs could just make a system a bit more conservative than the one above. In order for an Atlas to be as mobile as a Hunchback, you should have to strip all the way down to 50 tons or less. Again, this could be easily tweaked for the sake of balancing, and losing the extra weight should never exceed the bonus given by an engine upgrade. Remember that an Atlas's internals far outweigh the Hunchback's, so it would be drastically less efficient to use an Atlas in the first place. This is more of just a filler for any "lost weight".

Edited by Lord Trogus, 15 March 2012 - 07:49 PM.

[The Cheese]

[EDMW]CSN, on 15 March 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

I vote no. Because if releasing up more tonnage means more speed, what is stopping an Atlas being as mobile as a Hunchback then ?
Strip the SRM6 and LRM20. Removing the extra heatsinks and that is a lot of tonnage freed.

Yeah, that could theoretically happen, but so what if it did? Why would anyone want a mech with the speed, manoeuvrability and firepower of a hunchback, with the size of an Atlas?

In this example, the player is at a loss, because they're basically piloting a hunchback with a larger than normal hit box.

If they want to disadvantage themselves in this manner, why not let them?

The point is, there are trade offs to saving a bit of weight. Be it less armour, slower speed, or less firepower, the player who goes down that path will be disadvantaged. The advantage gained is that they will be marginally faster than normal. I don't see how this is a bad thing at all.

Edited by The Cheese, 15 March 2012 - 08:41 PM.

[EDMW CSN]

Lord Trogus, on 15 March 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

The devs could just make a system a bit more conservative than the one above. In order for an Atlas to be as mobile as a Hunchback, you should have to strip all the way down to 50 tons or less. Again, this could be easily tweaked for the sake of balancing, and losing the extra weight should never exceed the bonus given by an engine upgrade. Remember that an Atlas's internals far outweigh the Hunchback's, so it would be drastically less efficient to use an Atlas in the first place. This is more of just a filler for any "lost weight".

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.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 15 March 2012 - 08:48 PM.

[EDMW CSN]

The Cheese, on 15 March 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Yeah, that could theoretically happen, but so what if it did? Why would anyone want a mech with the speed, manoeuvrability and firepower of a hunchback, with the size of an Atlas? In this example, the player is at a loss, because they're basically piloting a hunchback with a larger than normal hit box. If they want to disadvantage themselves in this manner, why not let them? The point is, there are trade offs to saving a bit of weight. Be it less armour, slower speed, or less firepower, the player who goes down that path will be disadvantaged. The advantage gained is that they will be marginally faster than normal. I don't see how this is a bad thing at all.

Another point of contention.
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.

Fun and games yes, but ultimate it looks a little wonky.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 15 March 2012 - 08:51 PM.

[LordDeathStrike]

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

Another point of contention.
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 11 tons 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.

Fun and games yes, but ultimate it looks a little wonky.

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.