145 replies to this topic

[One Medic Army]

shintakie, on 11 February 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

Edit - Its a large part of why Mediums/Heavies are fairly useless compared to Assaults. Mobility is generally the key advantage of a Heavy over an Assault. With Assaults bein able to cover ground almost as effectively as a heavy and protect their rear torsos as well due to ridiculous torso twist speeds then theres little room for a Heavy when you could have an Atlas instead

You and I have different opinions on this then. My slowest heavy mech clocks in at 71.3kph, while my fastest assault mech goes 62.8. My fastest non-dragon heavy mech goes over 80, while my atlas only goes 56.7 (62.3 once I unlock speed tweak for it).
If your heavy is as slow or slower than an assault mech, it's because you sacrificed speed and/or he sacrificed firepower.

[Dr Killinger]

I'm not really a fan of everything needing to go 80+kph to be competitive, but I'm not sure how to fix it either, tbh.

[Adrian Steel]

Great topic.

Just to enumerate the extent of what we have here....the following advantages are achieved with a larger engine over a small one:

• Increased Speed.
  
• Increased Torso Twisting.
  
• Increased Heat efficiency via more heatsinks the higher the engine rating.
  
• Space efficiency via more heatsinks being moved from chassis to engine (especially double heatsinks).
  
• Space efficiency begets heat efficiency by allowing more heatsinks on the build overall.
  
• Space efficiency begets tonnage efficiency as it allows space for Endo Steel and/or Ferro Fibrous upgrades, saving tonnage.
  
• Tonnage efficiency allows for the installation of a bigger engine!

In case you didn't see the pattern: It's a recursive cycle of ever greater efficiencies:


bigger engine ==> more available space ==> more useable tonnage ==> bigger engine


I've rebuilt my favorite builds a few too many times as I realize that the next engine upgrade leads to ever greater efficiencies.

It might be necessary to de-couple the space efficiency that a bigger engine gives (it's not even intuitive!). Or perhaps another solution that breaks the cycle of recursive improvements.

Edited by Adrian Steel, 11 February 2013 - 10:22 PM.

[Adrian Steel]

* Edit:

As an additional side quip:

All engines up to and including the 245 rating require at least one heatsink installed on the chassis. Why place this limitation on the smaller engines only? The way I see it, it's almost as though it should be placed exclusively on the bigger engines to negate the space saving advantages of ever bigger engines.

Doing this might actually make the heavy class less efficient for its tonnage and give more emphasis to medium mechs.

Edited by Adrian Steel, 11 February 2013 - 10:38 PM.

[p00k]

Adrian Steel, on 11 February 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:

bigger engine ==> more available space ==> more useable tonnage ==> bigger engine

but especially with std engines, as you get up above 300 rated engines, the rate of tonnage increase outstrips the rate you gain extra engine heatsinks that can be offset by endosteel. which is why only a few assault builds use endosteel. many of them, the 4-5 tons endosteel saves you is a net tonnage LOSS, so the question becomes whether the extra speed and maneuverability is worth taking fewer heatsinks/ammo or weaponry

[ICEFANG13]

I do agree that mechs should not have to bring 10 heatsinks. I mean its not like a 4 MG Spider needs them (although of course it would have a much larger engine, just an example).

[One Medic Army]

ICEFANG13, on 11 February 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

I do agree that mechs should not have to bring 10 heatsinks. I mean its not like a 4 MG Spider needs them (although of course it would have a much larger engine, just an example).

The necessity of 10 heatsinks with every engine is from tabletop, where every mech is required to have 10 heatsinks, period.
This allows any mech with 2 engine crits to remain heat neutral while standing still and doing nothing.

[Adrian Steel]

One Medic Army, on 11 February 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

The necessity of 10 heatsinks with every engine is from tabletop, where every mech is required to have 10 heatsinks, period.
This allows any mech with 2 engine crits to remain heat neutral while standing still and doing nothing.

Disclaimer: I haven't played table top.

Considering heat works a lot differently in MWO than in tabletop (or so I've read), has PGI taken this into consideration or have they blindly followed a TT rule which they didn't actually need?

Edited by Adrian Steel, 11 February 2013 - 10:59 PM.

[ICEFANG13]

I knew it was from TT, but we need to lose that rule, and maybe make lighter engines better.

Edited by ICEFANG13, 11 February 2013 - 10:59 PM.

[Ryvucz]

I tend to go with the larger engines so if LRMs are falling, I can get out of the way, FAST.

There are mechs that have smaller engines, like the Cataphract 4X, but I don't think it leans toward telling the devs we need nothing but fast mechs.

Just good team communication and support.

[Asmudius Heng]

Adrian Steel, on 11 February 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

* Edit:

As an additional side quip:

All engines up to and including the 245 rating require at least one heatsink installed on the chassis. Why place this limitation on the smaller engines only? The way I see it, it's almost as though it should be placed exclusively on the bigger engines to negate the space saving advantages of ever bigger engines.

Doing this might actually make the heavy class less efficient for its tonnage and give more emphasis to medium mechs.

This is a Tabletop holdover. It is basically saying that the tonnage efficiency you gain from a smaller engine comes at a cost - because tonnage was sen as more important in TT for various reasons.

Though I am not sure how engines fared as the tech levels increased in the TT game so maybe this is just par for the course.

In the TT game though a slower speed was not fun, but outmanouvering an enemy and geting in behind them without being shot had more to do with initiative order as you could turn to face pretty easily if you didnt move too fast - it is simulated in MWO not too badly but the agility increases to engines certainly make this much different.

As with anything PGI touches, when they deviate from the TT game without considering the consequences and chaning other aspects of the game to keep things balances they come unglued.

Note: i am not saying you must be the same as TT - but the carefuly maths equations of balance from TT are the starting point so a single deviation means you need to consider how this plays out over many other mechanics in the game

[One Medic Army]

Adrian Steel, on 11 February 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Disclaimer: I haven't played table top.

Considering heat works a lot differently in MWO than in tabletop (or so I've read), has PGI taken this into consideration or have they blindly followed a TT rule which the didn't actually need?

On a closer level, if you plot the weights of engines <250 including mandatory heatsinks it's got a much more gradual progression than the weights of the engines by themselves. It might be to reduce the appeal of down-engining.

[Asmudius Heng]

Ryvucz, on 11 February 2013 - 11:00 PM, said:

I tend to go with the larger engines so if LRMs are falling, I can get out of the way, FAST.

There are mechs that have smaller engines, like the Cataphract 4X, but I don't think it leans toward telling the devs we need nothing but fast mechs.

Just good team communication and support.

Also another reason that LRMs need an overhaul to be more balanced (without ECM) but it will not go into that just plugging my post about those sorts of changes.


It does illustrate how balance is a big ecosystem where a small change to one thing ripples out changing everything.

[Mr Mantis]

in a light mech if your side torso is gone you may as well be dead. If you can move faster people have trouble hitting you with ballistics.

only people who don't need speed would be LRM support and people who drive assaults. Although before ECM I thought it would be funny to have a raven loaded with as many lrms as i could fit...
it was.

[AndyHill]

I think you guys have the triple-whammy of engine size correct:

- Speed is good
- Torso twist is god
- COOLING IS MANDATORY

But I'd like to stress the fact that picking bigger engine sizes is not really a problem in the engine balancing but rather a consequence of another important aspect of the game: heat. The way heat works now means that the engine internal sinks are very powerful since they are 2.0 when using doubles and you will always want to use doubles. Bigger engines also house more extra sinks, which is again a big deal when using doubles and especially when external sinks are only 1.4 in reality.

The main reason is, however, the fact that for some reason 'mechs in MWO have been made extremely hot. This means that the choice between speed and firepower doesn't exist in MWO like it does in the tabletop game, because your firepower is basically determined by how much heat sinks you can take along, not so much the size and number of guns you bring. So in MWO you get more speed and maneuverability when you use bigger engines, but you get more firepower as well.

Of course it's not possible to turn a tabletop game into a simulation directly, but I think this is one consequence of making fairly drastic changes into a somewhat balanced system. There is no longer a real tradeoff between speed and firepower, at least in the bigger 'mechs.

[Bromineberry]

Are there any tables, diagrams or formulars about the higher twist and turn rates? Frankly, I didn't know that bigger engines have an effect on these things...

[One Medic Army]

AndyHill, on 11 February 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

I think you guys have the triple-whammy of engine size correct:

- Speed is good
- Torso twist is god
- COOLING IS MANDATORY

But I'd like to stress the fact that picking bigger engine sizes is not really a problem in the engine balancing but rather a consequence of another important aspect of the game: heat. The way heat works now means that the engine internal sinks are very powerful since they are 2.0 when using doubles and you will always want to use doubles. Bigger engines also house more extra sinks, which is again a big deal when using doubles and especially when external sinks are only 1.4 in reality.

The main reason is, however, the fact that for some reason 'mechs in MWO have been made extremely hot. This means that the choice between speed and firepower doesn't exist in MWO like it does in the tabletop game, because your firepower is basically determined by how much heat sinks you can take along, not so much the size and number of guns you bring. So in MWO you get more speed and maneuverability when you use bigger engines, but you get more firepower as well.

Of course it's not possible to turn a tabletop game into a simulation directly, but I think this is one consequence of making fairly drastic changes into a somewhat balanced system. There is no longer a real tradeoff between speed and firepower, at least in the bigger 'mechs.

Extra DHS packed into the engine past the base 10 are not 2.0, they're 1.4s just like externals.
That being said essentially gaining 3 free crit slots for every 25 in engine rating is huge.

It may be true that in Tabletop you could continuously fire more weapons without overheating, however in MWO burst damage (and therefore burst heat) have a larger role. In MWO you can pack 6 PPCs onto a stalker and fire them all without any adverse effects. In TT that would bring your heat to over 20 most likely, and force you to roll to avoid shutdown instantly, plus movement and firing penalties (and ammo explosions).

Edited by One Medic Army, 11 February 2013 - 11:20 PM.

[Adrian Steel]

AndyHill, on 11 February 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

I think you guys have the triple-whammy of engine size correct:

- Speed is good
- Torso twist is god
- COOLING IS MANDATORY

But I'd like to stress the fact that picking bigger engine sizes is not really a problem in the engine balancing but rather a consequence of another important aspect of the game: heat. The way heat works now means that the engine internal sinks are very powerful since they are 2.0 when using doubles and you will always want to use doubles. Bigger engines also house more extra sinks, which is again a big deal when using doubles and especially when external sinks are only 1.4 in reality.

The main reason is, however, the fact that for some reason 'mechs in MWO have been made extremely hot. This means that the choice between speed and firepower doesn't exist in MWO like it does in the tabletop game, because your firepower is basically determined by how much heat sinks you can take along, not so much the size and number of guns you bring. So in MWO you get more speed and maneuverability when you use bigger engines, but you get more firepower as well.

Of course it's not possible to turn a tabletop game into a simulation directly, but I think this is one consequence of making fairly drastic changes into a somewhat balanced system. There is no longer a real tradeoff between speed and firepower, at least in the bigger 'mechs.

Yes!

This is partly why people are consistently taking heavies over mediums, and why people in the know have been pining that the heat system is broken since mid-beta.

[ICEFANG13]

One Medic Army, on 11 February 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:

Extra DHS packed into the engine past the base 10 are not 2.0, they're 1.4s just like externals.
That being said essentially gaining 3 free crit slots for every 25 in engine rating is huge.

It may be true that in Tabletop you could continuously fire more weapons without overheating, however in MWO burst damage (and therefore burst heat) have a larger role. In MWO you can pack 6 PPCs onto a stalker and fire them all without any adverse effects. In TT that would bring your heat to over 20 most likely, and force you to roll to avoid shutdown instantly, plus movement and firing penalties (and ammo explosions).

This isn't quite true, engine heatsinks are 2.0, and heatsinks are 1.4

[One Medic Army]

ICEFANG13, on 11 February 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

This isn't quite true, engine heatsinks are 2.0, and heatsinks are 1.4

Pretty sure that's only the 10 that come in with the engine, not the extras.

Confirmed in mechlab.
Placing the 11th heatsink on my Jenner in the side torso gave me a 1.33 heat efficiency. Putting the same heatsink in the engine also gave me a 1.33 heat efficiency.

Edited by One Medic Army, 11 February 2013 - 11:31 PM.