26 replies to this topic

[De La Fresniere]

I noticed that purposefully reducing your weight doesn't increase your speed at all.

I'm wondering if this is done intentionally, or if a future patch will fix that and give players the option of giving up part of their firepower (or armor, or heat efficiency) for more mobility.

I know Engines partially fill that role already, but they often have severe caps and it certainly doesn't explain why, say, the exact same Centurion wouldn't move a lot faster if it weren't carrying that super heavy Gauss Rifle; a 35-ton Centurion should be able to move much faster than a 50-ton Centurion with the same Engine. It makes for much more interesting customization options, too.

Is there information available on what the devs intend to do with that particular aspect of mech customization?

I'll admit I'd be pretty disappointed if it's completely ignored. If you go out of your way to go for realism (clunky lumbering mechs, heating issues, etc), it'd be silly to not address such fundamental physics issues as the effects of weight on an Engine's efficiency in moving a vehicle. Especially when it has the potential to improve player options in a simple yet intuitive and pleasant way. An excuse like "the mech just wasn't designed for that kind of speed even with more available power than expected" doesn't work for me; if someone is smart enough to design giant walking pilotable robots, they wouldn't skimp on said mech's maximum potential movement.

Bad enough not knowing what maximum Engine size a mech can take and what the resulting speed will be until after you buy it...

tl;dr version, lower weight should result in better speed. But will it?

[RazorSixActual]

This is intentional and won't be changed.

[Kunae]

Nope.

Speed is a function of max-tonnage vs engine rating. Actual weight has nothing to do with it, and never will.

[SmithMPBT]

Interesting idea but their following TT rules pretty much right?

[Redshift2k5]

sorry, this is not the way Mechwarrior works.

You may increase a mech's top speed by purchasing a larger engine (which will cost additional tons) up to that variant's maximum engine size.

You may also purchase the Speed Tweak skill efficiency which wil lgive you and additional 10% to your top speed.

Don't forget that a mech is not driven by a conventional engine, so no real-world engine limitations apply! It's a fusion reactor providing power to gigantic artificial muscle fibers, not an internal combustion engine; The maximum speed of a mech is set at the factory when the engine is installed and the myomer are tuned to that speed etc etc. Changing the engine in the factory is the only way to change your mech's speed profile.

[J4ckInthebox]

If you want some lore techno-babble: the 'mechs move thanks to myomers (artificials muscles) which contracts at a certain speed while an electrical current is applied to them. Larger 'mechs have larger myomers which contracts faster and harder, but require more power,. If you lighten the mech, it won't change the myomer's contraction speed nor their power consumption, thus not change the 'mech maximal speed.

Edited by J4ckInthebox, 30 October 2012 - 10:30 AM.

[syngyne]

This was asked in a Q&A(I think) a while back, and the answer was they have no plans to implement speed boosts for being under tonnage.

[wanderer]

Instead of underweighting your 'Mech, use the excess weight to increase your engine rating.

Voila, you now move faster! Problem solved.

[CCC Dober]

The game sure can handle faster Mechs, but the netcode and infrastructure can't. This would certainly be possible with several regional servers at some point in the future.That is if you intend to push the current speed limits.

Edited by CCC Dober, 30 October 2012 - 10:33 AM.

[Sandpit]

By this logic a mech would start moving faster every time they fire off some ammo. The other answers do a good job of explaining the "thecno-babble" as to why it wouldn't make a mech move faster. It also helps diversify the different mechs and make them more viable if you're looking for a speed demon

[De La Fresniere]

Well that's highly disappointing...

My thanks to those who at least tried to provide a MechWarrior-based explanation. I suppose the other posts are informative enough to answer the question I asked, but... frustratingly short on reason, and I just can't stand senselessness.

I hope some of the Engine caps are raised. Else I guess I'll just scratch a bunch of mechs off my list...

[Redshift2k5]

De La Fresniere, on 30 October 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Well that's highly disappointing...

My thanks to those who at least tried to provide a MechWarrior-based explanation. I suppose the other posts are informative enough to answer the question I asked, but... frustratingly short on reason, and I just can't stand senselessness.

I hope some of the Engine caps are raised. Else I guess I'll just scratch a bunch of mechs off my list...

This is unfortunately the way Mechwarrior works, plain and simple.

Is there a particular mech build or speed you are trying to reach?

you'll never see a 130KPH Hunchback ever again, but there are Cicada builds that can bring very similar loadouts at 130+ speeds. For fast missile mediums you'll have to wait for the Trebuchet, it has a higher rated stock engine than Hunchback/Centurions. for a fast Awesome, buy a 9M(it can go like 80-ish I think)

[De La Fresniere]

wanderer, on 30 October 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

Instead of underweighting your 'Mech, use the excess weight to increase your engine rating.

Voila, you now move faster! Problem solved.

As I mentioned, I realize Engines already provide a partial solution to the whole "sacrifice weight for speed" customization option. But I also mentioned many of the mechs have had their max Engine size severely crippled, so that's not a viable solution in most cases.

For example, two of the three Raven variants were crippled last patch. Was that really necessary?

I'll just have to pretend that the MechWarrior setting's mech designers were a bunch of ***** savants. They could build amazing combat mechs but were somehow unable to realize how valuable speed is in combat.

[De La Fresniere]

Redshift2k5, on 30 October 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

Is there a particular mech build or speed you are trying to reach?

No, not really (and I certainly don't want to see 130 km/h hunchies), I just find that speeds are inconsistent.

In my mind, a Raven that does 81 km/h max is completely ******** because it'll be killed far too easily. And if you're going to be that slow, you could use an Awesome that moves at 78 km/h and have many times as much armor and much better firepower.

The two crippled Ravens are maxed at 111 km/h. Given how fragile a Light mech is, it should not go any slower than 120 km/h. What does a Raven have on a Cicada?

Right now a Centurion can't go over 84. But get this, Catapults and Dragons, both Heavies, can move at 97 km/h. If that's possible, then all Medium mechs should be able to get to 100 or 110 km/h simply based on how light they are.

It's just screwed up all around.

[Redshift2k5]

My Catapult with a 300 engine only runs at 74. A 315 will give it a bit more, but not 97. Plot skills will bring it up to 80.4kph, still a far cry from 97!

The Dragon is supposed to be fast; all Dragons sacrifice weaponry for speed, and come with fewer weapon hardpoints than their size might lead you to believe(as well asa maximum of 2 slots for missile weaponry). Their stock engine size of 300 means they cna mount very large engines, as intended for their role.

Medium mechs that are intended to run as fast as light mechs in a relatively small club; right now we have the Cicada.

Ravens do have some problems, but if you want blazing speed, the Raven is the wrong choice, just like if you want lots of missiles the Dragon is the wrong choice. The main reason to play a Raven? To get a Raven 3L with BAP and GECM; those will be worth it!

[Jack Corvus]

De La Fresniere, on 30 October 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

What does a Raven have on a Cicada?

Smaller sizer, tighter turning radius, faster rotation speed. No light mech has a good reason to suffer LRM hits except in cases where the team needs them to in order to buy some time or get attention, because light mechs can maneuver and hide where larger mechs cannot. Cicadas are much easier to actually hit despite their speed. They're not a Jenner. Every mech has ups and downs, bullet point lists and numbers alone don't tell the whole story.

[De La Fresniere]

Thontor, on 30 October 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

It's just the way it is.

I know that's how it is, I'm saying I believe that it's wrong. I should be either shown that I'm missing something and that the system is fine, or the system should be changed.

Or... is MechWarrior a religious cult now? That would explain a few things...

I'm getting the Catapult info from the MWO wiki, it still lists max speed for all variants at 97.2 km/h. It's possible they were also reduced (the two slower Ravens could do 138.8 and were only crippled last patch) and the info is out of date because no one with access to a Catapult bothered to update the wiki.

[Zyllos]

De La Fresniere, on 30 October 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

No, not really (and I certainly don't want to see 130 km/h hunchies), I just find that speeds are inconsistent.

In my mind, a Raven that does 81 km/h max is completely ******** because it'll be killed far too easily. And if you're going to be that slow, you could use an Awesome that moves at 78 km/h and have many times as much armor and much better firepower.

The two crippled Ravens are maxed at 111 km/h. Given how fragile a Light mech is, it should not go any slower than 120 km/h. What does a Raven have on a Cicada?

Right now a Centurion can't go over 84. But get this, Catapults and Dragons, both Heavies, can move at 97 km/h. If that's possible, then all Medium mechs should be able to get to 100 or 110 km/h simply based on how light they are.

It's just screwed up all around.

Tonnage, hardpoint differences, silhouette, EW, and modules are just some of the beginning differences between a Raven and Cicada.

Now, I agree, the Raven feels out of place because EW is not implemented and there are not enough modules to make lights different from fast mediums. But there is a big difference between their silhouettes, hardpoints, and tonnages.

The point of engine limitations, which is tonnage x 8.4 (to the maximum 400) and base engine x 1.5 for lights, base x 1.4 for mediums, base x 1.3 for heavies, and base x 1.2 for assaults, is to make each chassis/variant unique, along with it's silhouette and hardpoint layout.

The tonnage x 8.4 was put in to limit the maximum absolute speed so the netcode doesn't completely break down. While I agree that this is a terrible workaround of the issue (a bug becoming a feature? never a good idea), they decided to implement this feature so they could move on with the beta. I just hope PGI does not forget that this needs to be fixed in the future.

The base engine x #.# is one of the ways to make each chassis/variant unique. In TT, all 50t mechs are exactly alike. Also, if BV and tonnage limits are not implemented, what is the point of taking lights instead of fast mediums? Once BV and/or tonnage limits are introduced into the game (most likely or hopefully along with Community Warfare), then we will begin to start to see the differences between having a slow scout with EW Raven vs. the ultra fast striker of the Cicada. Until then, remember what is in store for the future.

[Beo Vulf]

Jack Corvus, on 30 October 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Smaller sizer, tighter turning radius, faster rotation speed. No light mech has a good reason to suffer LRM hits except in cases where the team needs them to in order to buy some time or get attention, because light mechs can maneuver and hide where larger mechs cannot. Cicadas are much easier to actually hit despite their speed. They're not a Jenner. Every mech has ups and downs, bullet point lists and numbers alone don't tell the whole story.

Yeh but drob in endo steel for the skelly, and Fibro Ferrus Armor with double heat sinks in the CIcida and you have a heavily armored jenner that can survive a FUBAR, and do 126k. I tested that combo in the closed BETA it is "sic".

[De La Fresniere]

Redshift2k5, on 30 October 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

My Catapult with a 300 engine only runs at 74. A 315 will give it a bit more, but not 97. Plot skills will bring it up to 80.4kph, still a far cry from 97!

Ah, so 315 is the max? Well it's true that the Speed Tweak efficiency is still broken and not giving the full bonus. Else it'd already go from 74 to 81.4 (or, say, around 78 to 85.8 for a 315), which is indeed significantly much slower than 97.

In any case, I don't want to be spending all day in this thread... I just thought lowering tonnage should have some practical purpose, particularly one that would allow players to exceed the arbitrary and often questionable Engine size limits since that's the most logical possibility.

Like I said I'll just scratch a bunch of mechs off my list. It's actually a good thing, a lot of them being unviable means I won't need to buy Hero versions or a bunch of additional mech slots. Gives me a good excuse to not buy additional MC.

Thanks all, I think we've pretty much answered the question here.