15 replies to this topic

[DMT]

Sorry I'm new to this game - Been playing just a few days. I used to play the table top version - but this is all new to me. Anyway - I love playing as jenner JR7-F had about 50 games so far and loving this mech. I want to upgrade the engine to an XL- but there is a problem. I noticed in the shop the best engine is XL 300, from what I've read you can put this in a jenner. But then I noticed the awesome has a XL 320. I can't seem to find the stats for it and is not in the shop. My question is, if I buy the awesome, strip out the XL 320 - will it be possible to put it in my jenner? My setup is basically tag and 5 small lasers no jump jets, and stacked heat sinks. Silly question I know, but I'm desperate for the fastest engine I can get,

Edited by DMT, 25 October 2012 - 10:08 PM.

[SuomiWarder]

No. Mechs are limted to the maximum engine rating based on their tonnage, XL or otherwise. So the Awesome at 80 tons can hold a larger numbered engine (standard or XL) than a 35 ton Jenner. I don't remember the exact forumlas for max engine by total tons, but basically it was a rule put in after play testing to reduce the scads of 180 kph plus jenners and commandos running around.

[DMT]

Ah right, I've read jenner can hold the XL 300 - did they change that recently? I really wanted to max out speed, I'm nearly at 4.9 mill so I guess I'll try putting it in . Thanks for the info though, this game is almost as complicated as the table top game

[Rugarou]

DMT, on 25 October 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

Ah right, I've read jenner can hold the XL 300 - did they change that recently? I really wanted to max out speed, I'm nearly at 4.9 mill so I guess I'll try putting it in . Thanks for the info though, this game is almost as complicated as the table top game

Well, since the game is hugely based on TT and the devs are trying to follow it as much as possible, then yea it is going to get complicated when it comes to mech builds.

[Violette]

Still can put XL 300 in Jenner, which is good because Jenners need speed. THEY NEED SPEED. Really.

Speed is fun.

[Varcor]

A good place to get answers to questions like these is in Ohmwrekers Quick Reference thread (here: http://mwomercs.com/...s-excel-inside/ ). He has gone through and built charts for all kinds of things like hardpoints, engine capacities and weapon stats (to name just a few!). Also, he updates it whenever there are changes to the stats.

[DMT]

Thanks that post is awesome!

[LORD ORION]

Very nice...

One thing I noticed because I wanted to do this

My AWS-9M comes with a XL-320 and I wanted to drop it into my AWS-8Q, but this can't be done. (max engine in the AWS-8Q is XL-290)

Looking at the max engine I can mount in my AWS-9M, I get XL-385

Is there are reason for this I am oblivious too? Or if I want a fast Awesome I must use the 9M, just because.

[Inkarnus]

aws 8 r 160 - 290 engine could cry about that it dont support xl 300 but we i man up and find a way arouid it

[De La Fresniere]

Your max engine size is calculated off of the mech variant's stock engine size.

If a variant comes with a better engine than normal, its max engine size will be better too. Take the Raven, for example. The old Ravens can only go up to 111 km/h but the new one can go up to 136.5 km/h because its stock engine is stronger.

[LORD ORION]

De La Fresniere, on 05 November 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Your max engine size is calculated off of the mech variant's stock engine size.

If a variant comes with a better engine than normal, its max engine size will be better too. Take the Raven, for example. The old Ravens can only go up to 111 km/h but the new one can go up to 136.5 km/h because its stock engine is stronger.

Got it, thanks for the explanation.

[Jonathan Paine]

Words fail to express how arbitrary it is to allow a much larger engine on a much smaller 'mech. The difference between different variants of the same 'mech just adds insult to injury.

Devs: what is the rationale for this weird decision? Why can't an Atlas load up with an 400 engine and lumber at an incredible 64kp/h? Why can a Jenner load a larger engine?

[Velba]

[Minsc]

Jonathan Paine, on 14 November 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

Words fail to express how arbitrary it is to allow a much larger engine on a much smaller 'mech. The difference between different variants of the same 'mech just adds insult to injury.

Devs: what is the rationale for this weird decision? Why can't an Atlas load up with an 400 engine and lumber at an incredible 64kp/h? Why can a Jenner load a larger engine?

You must not remember the 200 Km/H commandos (or the 264 Km/H ones). They were impossible to hit due to netcode being much more broken then, than it is now. Even then, Netcode still has issues with my 300 XL jenner+ speed tweak.

Mechs were latterly teleporting from one base to another in a matter of seconds and were impossible to kill, even with knockdowns. As for fast assaults, well, they were just nasty. I had an Awesome moving at 90 Km/h, max armor and had 7 MLs and could fire them all constantly. It was completely broken. Once it got into range, it was not possible to get out of its range.

As things stand now, it still is possible to get a 64Km/H Atlas, just takes speed tweak.

[Sean von Steinike]

Jonathan Paine, on 14 November 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

Words fail to express how arbitrary it is to allow a much larger engine on a much smaller 'mech. The difference between different variants of the same 'mech just adds insult to injury.

Devs: what is the rationale for this weird decision? Why can't an Atlas load up with an 400 engine and lumber at an incredible 64kp/h? Why can a Jenner load a larger engine?

Must be new around here. The restrictions were put in place to keep mechs in their more expected roles. Hunchbacks going almost as fast as Jenners when they are supposed to be a slow medium just felt wrong to many people and diminished the desirability of lights.

[Minsc]

Yup, completely forgot about the fastbacks. 130Km/H swaybacks, 9 small lasers, no heat problems, way more armor than a jenner, and more guns as well.

Edited by Minsc, 15 November 2012 - 12:02 AM.