18 replies to this topic

[Volume]

High rated engines are beyond king in this game, I wish we had Gyro upgrades for twist/turn speed and engine just affected top speed, maybe acceleration - it makes certain chassis nigh-useless compared to their "better" counterparts without engine limits. Or at least lift the speed limits from the chassis in question.

[borisof007]

Isn't this what the mech tree is supposed to help with?

Acceleration upgrade, Turn speed/amount upgrade, deceleration upgrade, top speed upgrade.

All of that's there.

[Lyoto Machida]

borisof007, on 28 January 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

Isn't this what the mech tree is supposed to help with?

Acceleration upgrade, Turn speed/amount upgrade, deceleration upgrade, top speed upgrade.

All of that's there.

Yeah but what's the point if everyone ends up with the same thing? It should be some sort of tree where you have to make choices that would limit you from getting other things.

[StalaggtIKE]

Lyoto Machida, on 28 January 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

Yeah but what's the point if everyone ends up with the same thing? It should be some sort of tree where you have to make choices that would limit you from getting other things.

I wish this was the case. However PGI has said they do not want to go the route of Skill tree (like WoW).

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 28 January 2013 - 12:35 PM.

[Lee Ving]

Lyoto Machida, on 28 January 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

It should be some sort of tree where you have to make choices that would limit you from getting other things.

Limiting other things OP.

[Booran]

Bigger engines comes with a cost, what good is a fast twist rate when you don't got arms or room for big guns? (example)

[Sir Wulfrick]

Booran, on 28 January 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

Bigger engines comes with a cost, what good is a fast twist rate when you don't got arms or room for big guns? (example)

This. Yes, having a larger engine makes any chassis perform generally more responsively, however the larger engines, even XL versions, demand compromises in other areas of any build.

I don't necessarily agree that increased engine size should mean increased torso twist, but there are compromises involved that balance the situation to some extent.

[StalaggtIKE]

Booran, on 28 January 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

Bigger engines comes with a cost, what good is a fast twist rate when you don't got arms or room for big guns? (example)

Agreed. However, gyro upgrades would be nice.

[BerryChunks]

100 Engine - Cicada.
Turn.
13 seconds.
Torso twist.
5- 6 seconds full arc.
Convergence/settle.
1.5-2 seconds.

Speed = 44.

300 Engine - Cicada.
Turn.
5 seconds.
Twist.
2 Seconds full arc.
Convergence/settle.
>1 second.
Speed = 121.

160 Engine - Awesome.
Turn.
16 seconds.
Twist.
6-7 seconds full arc.
Convergence/settle.
2.5 - 3 seconds.

Speed = 32.4

240 Engine - Awesome.
Turn.
11 seconds.
Twist.
3.5 - 4 seconds full arc.
Convergence/settle.
1 second.

Speed = 46.


Beyond the hard carp. lower engines are pathetic, and PGI intended this. There is no way to lower the speed on an Atlas from stock and have it survive and gain any value out of the speed difference.

PIG made speed brawler online. Why do you guys think those ravens with 150kph and lagshield were sooooo good?

Look how slow a Cic turns with a low engine. It's not Kosher with the original CBT rules and design.

[Orzorn]

Higher engines should only increase speed. The increased torso twist speed is really something I don't agree with.

[BerryChunks]

Orzorn, on 28 January 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

Higher engines should only increase speed. The increased torso twist speed is really something I don't agree with.

Those numbers are Even disregarding the way heat sinks work.

A engine with double heat sinks works on 2.0.

The bigger an engine is, the more heat sinks you can store in it.

So we start with the first issue of the engine tying to the speed of the mech's responses to various inputs.

If we take zero engine as a baseline, you have a pretty simple +twist, +speed, +turn, +convergence/settle business.

But, if we take the native engine of a mech's engine as baseline and take a lower engine you get:
-turn, -speed, -twist, -convergence/settle.

Add onto that the possibility of one less engine heatsink and the cost of lower engines becomes this.

-critical, -turn, -speed, -twist, -convergence/settle.


Since we know that DHS only work at full capacity in the engine, we can easily understand that taking a smaller engine simply ruins attempted DHS. That -critical coming from the extra heatsinks needed is now -3.

Conversely, If we take an XL engine of sufficient strength, and DHS, we can shove 2 heatsinks on it for a total of 12 full 2.0 heatsinks. These two heatsinks alone offset the "cost" in criticals that are taken up in the side torsos by the engine.

Then you get to add +turn, +twist, +speed, +convergence/settle on top of that.

The choice is clear and obvious about which direction to go with regard to engine size.

CBT rules didnt have anything about twist and all that other nonsense, so all you got for larger engines there was speed and a few more heatsinks on the engine, but heatsinks outside are STILL 2.0, so it wasn't as damning to take a lower rate engine if you had the criticals.

That is why and how PGI made it Speed Brawler online.

[Kaspirikay]

Skill trees are lame. I do t want to be in a situation where a level 1 cant win a level 100. This should be a game based on skill, tactics and luck. Not about levels.

[Jimskiavic]

Orzorn, on 28 January 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

Higher engines should only increase speed. The increased torso twist speed is really something I don't agree with.

As much as I love driving highly maneuverable Atlai, I completely agree.

[Solis Obscuri]

BerryChunks, on 28 January 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

100 Engine - Cicada.
Turn.
13 seconds.
Torso twist.
5- 6 seconds full arc.
Convergence/settle.
1.5-2 seconds.

Speed = 44.

300 Engine - Cicada.
Turn.
5 seconds.
Twist.
2 Seconds full arc.
Convergence/settle.
>1 second.
Speed = 121.

160 Engine - Awesome.
Turn.
16 seconds.
Twist.
6-7 seconds full arc.
Convergence/settle.
2.5 - 3 seconds.

Speed = 32.4

240 Engine - Awesome.
Turn.
11 seconds.
Twist.
3.5 - 4 seconds full arc.
Convergence/settle.
1 second.

Speed = 46.


Beyond the hard carp. lower engines are pathetic, and PGI intended this. There is no way to lower the speed on an Atlas from stock and have it survive and gain any value out of the speed difference.

PIG made speed brawler online. Why do you guys think those ravens with 150kph and lagshield were sooooo good?

Look how slow a Cic turns with a low engine. It's not Kosher with the original CBT rules and design.

Wow, I'm agreeing with Berry - someone take a screenshot!But seriously, the engine size shouldn't hand out so many advantages - things like twist and turn rates should be more dependent on chassis. It'd be another good step towards making every 'mech "not just a different shaped bag of guns".

[Davers]

StalaggtIKE, on 28 January 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

I wish this was the case. However PGI has said they do not want to go the route of Skill tree (like WoW).

That's because they didn't work. It was only the illusion of choice. Some paths were clearly better than others.

[Trauglodyte]

I agree with what you're saying, Berry (well, I have to as it is right and you've posted it in like 4 other threads today ). The problem, though, is that if they equalize it across all mechs or even equalize it amongst weight classes then people will ***** up a storm about how either they're too sluggish, if PGI takes the conservative approach, or that its too fast, which would mean lights would ***** up a storm for not being able to run laps around everything.

Now, I'm unsure if they are operating under the assumption that a bigger engine creates more torque which would, in theory, allow a mech to turn its torso faster. But, you'd think that in the year 3050, even with a drop in technology, the mech designers would be able to do something to have it be simpler.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 28 January 2013 - 06:54 PM.

[BerryChunks]

Trauglodyte, on 28 January 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

I agree with what you're saying, Berry (well, I have to as it is right and you've posted it in like 4 other threads today ). The problem, though, is that if they equalize it across all mechs or even equalize it amongst weight classes then people will ***** up a storm about how either they're too sluggish, if PGI takes the conservative approach, or that its too fast, which would mean lights would ***** up a storm for not being able to run laps around everything.

Now, I'm unsure if they are operating under the assumption that a bigger engine creates more torque which would, in theory, allow a mech to turn its torso faster. But, you'd think that in the year 3050, even with a drop in technology, the mech designers would be able to do something to have it be simpler.

They have things in real tanks today called "hydraulic assist", which is basically a system that works in conjunction with the engine to achieve turning speed.

Any weapon engineer would design a system that allowed the torso to twist, and the ankles (which are where the turning comes from) to twist, at a rate to achieve optimum combat efficiency for it's job, and THEN worry about how high it can make it's own velocity.

In other words, the lightest engine might be sluggish forward, but still has 100% of the power available to help turn the object compared to a larger engine. A larger engine that has a direct impact on turning rate would make the object turn "too fast", so either mechanical or computerized limits would be placed on it, or the other thing I said would be placed on it, a system that is capable of X turning rate at minimum, no matter the engine size.

What they did was try to say "okay, larger engine parts mean larger actuators" or some such, to thereby justify when a light gets a 300 engine going 120 kph it also can twist and turn quickly as well, hoping thereby to create a sort of "magic bullet", since it is inferred that large mechs will choose slow engines, and so be sluggish, while light mechs will choose fast engines.

This effect really gummed up the intention behind choosing specs of a mech.

the original CBT was the way it was because all of it's values were the way they were. When changing something so fundamental as "engine size now gives you massive bonuses in these other important combat areas", you change the nature of the game.

Edited by BerryChunks, 28 January 2013 - 07:35 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

I don't actually ming the slower turning. Maybe I'm biased being a Cicada driver but being light and fast should equate to being nimble as well. Its the only way to help ensure some level of survivability. That said, I don't like how torso twist speed gets screwed in the process. Its one of the reasons why driving an assault is so damned frustrating - when you get a light in your face, you can't turn quickly enough to swat 'em.

[BerryChunks]

Realistic: All mechs have similar or very slight grading from most to least in turn, twist, convergence speeds from smallest to biggest.

fun factor, or "competitive": each of the four main weight classes has a noticeable increase or decrease in these factors, based on light to assault.

Engine should never have factored in, because it's doing precisely as described: Speed Brawl Mech Assault Online. too many pros for big, too many cons for small.

This isn't even profound because its just hindsight, and not prediction.