145 replies to this topic

[Grand Ayatollah Kerensky]

The poorly conceived hardpoint limitations and armor limits combined with DHS that don't dissipate 2 heat and take up 3 slots, drastically reduce the utility of mounting a smaller engine. If you could pile on a massive amount of armor and weapons, you might see more people mounting smaller engines to become lumbering behemoths.

[Zyllos]

I agree on the issues of torso twist and DHS having different values for their placement location being causes of why larger engines are being used.

Torso twist should be 100% based on the mech chassis/varient and have no function relating to engine rating (because engine rating should not effect accuracy of weapons, which torso twist speed is a factor in accuracy).

DHS should not have different values based on where they are equipped. I have given PGI so MANY different explainations on why this is incorrect and bad game design until I was blue in the face. They still have not listened and I am not sure if they will.

The reason behind having hardpoints is to make mech design unique. While I disagree on how PGI has implemented the hardpoints (multiple hardpoints for each weapon port on the mech, leading to weapons being fired out of the same port at the same time, this is entire issue altogether that needs to be addressed, but not here), I think they need to stay and is not part of why mechs take larger/smaller rating engines.

Edited by Zyllos, 12 February 2013 - 11:46 AM.

[One Medic Army]

Zyllos, on 12 February 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

DHS should not have different values based on where they are equipped. I have given PGI so MANY different explainations on why this is incorrect and bad game design until I was blue in the face. They still have not listened and I am not sure if they will.

Any time you have a choice in the matter, they don't, which is to say shoving extra heatsinks into your engine does not make them 2.0s.
The only time you take a penalty is going to an engine size less than 250, and honestly I don't see a good reason to do that ever for purposes of speed unless you're in a commando.

[Viper69]

Slower mechs in Battletech were relegated to garrison duty. So unless we have something to defend other than an immaginary square on the ground there is no point to a slow mech.

[Huntsman]

While I agree that speed is overrated on larger chassis (I don't care that you have a 400 engine in that Awesome, you're still huge and slow), don't forget that there is a heat and crit space advantage to larger engines as well (especially up to the 250 standard or 255 XL that get 2.0 HS/DHS). While some builds may not value either of these two traits, and the perception of the degree of benefit these two factors provide can be overrated, there can be no doubt that these considerations do make a great deal of difference for many builds.

What makes no sense to me is when you have a mech (particular a large mech) that has, say for instance, a max engine size of 345, and the pilot puts that 345 into the mech instead of the 325. There's not a speed difference between the two engines that will be decisive in a fight, but there is often a big enough tonnage difference to impact the combat viability of the build, and both engines provide the same heat and crit space benefits.

Edited by Huntsman, 12 February 2013 - 12:16 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Protection, on 11 February 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

We're not talking XL versus Standard engines, were talking larger sized engines versus smaller (as in standard vs standard, XL vs XL, as well). And larger is almost always preferable, and I think that is an issue worth discussing.

Whether we're comparing XL vs Standards or simply larger versus smaller the point I'm making remains. You get a tradeoff for going lighter. It's weight saved. And while I appreciate you believe it's worth further discussion, my only question would be what's your logic for why lighter engines deserve some sort of advantage to balance them against heavier but faster engines? They get the weight back, why do they deserve additional advantages?

On another note, while speed is life for many builds, there's a point of diminishing returns based on the "leaping" point for engines, where they jump a full ton or what have you but your speed gains are fairly minute, which leads to the question of, are you holistically getting the most bang for your buck by simply taking the largest engine available (often you're not...it can be beneficial to shave a ton+ of engine, losing small kph, to get needed weight that will allow you to upgrade a weapon, DHS, ammo etc that can make you much more effective).

So very much of one's performance is based on their skill, their personal playstyle etc that theorycrafting the nebulous middle ground of performance metrics really is more subjective than objective. By that I mean, min/max mathematic optimization can really only render one's limiting factors at the most extreme edges of the performance envelope but most of us aren't so skilled that we're playing to the 100% potential value of any combination of skill, speed, armor, heat and damage. Finding what works for you is more important honestly.

Anyway, got off track there. I personally haven't seen any compelling argument that smaller engines deserve some sort of advantage to offset their lack of speed (since they save weight, which is a balancing factor) but I'm certainly not a Dev so it's not like I need to be convinced. I just doubt you convince a Dev based on the discussion in this thread so far.

Good hunting in the mean time.

[WKMitchell]

I wanted to point out that talking about larger engines is also a semi first world problem in this game the simple cost of new engine for somebody who plays casually is very large especially when we are talking about XL. 4.9 mil CBills for the 325XL I wanted to put in my Cata C4. For people who are hardcore and have lots of money probably not a big deal. For a casual who looks at that cost he sees an entirely new mech. My point being that yes larger engines are a recursive loop in this game probably again something that should be looked into but also it should be looked at in terms of how it forces balance between Casual and Hardcore playing in PUG matchmaker to be even farther apart in terms of competitiveness. (apologies for the lack of paragraphs the posting tool doesn't seem to want to let me create them for some reason)

Edited by WKMitchell, 12 February 2013 - 02:37 PM.

[Protection]

Lukoi, on 12 February 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

Whether we're comparing XL vs Standards or simply larger versus smaller the point I'm making remains. You get a tradeoff for going lighter. It's weight saved. And while I appreciate you believe it's worth further discussion, my only question would be what's your logic for why lighter engines deserve some sort of advantage to balance them against heavier but faster engines? They get the weight back, why do they deserve additional advantages?

On another note, while speed is life for many builds, there's a point of diminishing returns based on the "leaping" point for engines, where they jump a full ton or what have you but your speed gains are fairly minute, which leads to the question of, are you holistically getting the most bang for your buck by simply taking the largest engine available (often you're not...it can be beneficial to shave a ton+ of engine, losing small kph, to get needed weight that will allow you to upgrade a weapon, DHS, ammo etc that can make you much more effective).

So very much of one's performance is based on their skill, their personal playstyle etc that theorycrafting the nebulous middle ground of performance metrics really is more subjective than objective. By that I mean, min/max mathematic optimization can really only render one's limiting factors at the most extreme edges of the performance envelope but most of us aren't so skilled that we're playing to the 100% potential value of any combination of skill, speed, armor, heat and damage. Finding what works for you is more important honestly.

Anyway, got off track there. I personally haven't seen any compelling argument that smaller engines deserve some sort of advantage to offset their lack of speed (since they save weight, which is a balancing factor) but I'm certainly not a Dev so it's not like I need to be convinced. I just doubt you convince a Dev based on the discussion in this thread so far.

Good hunting in the mean time.

But you are missing the point. The point is that you are not saving tonnage with a smaller engine. You are in fact, saving more tonnage with large engines, because they allow you to install more heatsinks, fit endo steel and ferro fibrous, as well as having a higher top speed and better turning.

There is no reason for an Atlas Build to run a 275 STD, for example, because every single build with a 275STD engine can be made to have a 325 STD engine with no drawbacks whatsoever. It is a 100% upgrade in every category. The smaller engine actually has less free tonnage than the larger engine. This is the issue.

[Roadkill]

Protection, on 11 February 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

One of the things that has been bothering me -- and I don't have a solution for it at this time -- is the use of large engine sizes on almost every possible mech and variant.

Speed is life. A faster Mech is almost always more survivable than a slower Mech, so people are naturally going to try to cram in as much speed as they can. It's the same with armor - how often do you take off more than a half ton (essentially a rounding error) on anything but a Mech's legs?

But also, I see this as a side effect of the hardpoint system. When using TT rules to build Mechs it is much easier to cram on extra weapons and so that's what people tend to do. But when you're limited in the number of weapons you can carry you might as well spend your extra tonnage on a bigger engine.

[Padic]

Protection, on 11 February 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

One of the things that has been bothering me -- and I don't have a solution for it at this time -- is the use of large engine sizes on almost every possible mech and variant.

I think what we're observing here is that very few stock variants use ES or FF or DH or XL natively. As a natural recourse, when you free up tonnage but restrict your critical slot usage, you are going to find yourself using the extra tonnage in forms that don't also take up more space. Engines and armor are basically the only two things that fit this category, and basically (minus some points on the legs) every mech build will max armor no matter what.

So it's not necessarily that "bigger than stock" is optimal, it's more that the build rules funnel you towards a larger engine.

If you felt it really was desirable to have all engine sizes/speeds be represented at the competitive level (I am not convinced this is important), one way to do so would be to cut back to the number of engine sizes to something closer to the tabletop rules. That way, increasing your engine size is a massive commitment - unlike the current build system where you can convert your last couple tons and halfs into a free speed increase.

[shintakie]

Padic, on 12 February 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

I think what we're observing here is that very few stock variants use ES or FF or DH or XL natively. As a natural recourse, when you free up tonnage but restrict your critical slot usage, you are going to find yourself using the extra tonnage in forms that don't also take up more space. Engines and armor are basically the only two things that fit this category, and basically (minus some points on the legs) every mech build will max armor no matter what.

So it's not necessarily that "bigger than stock" is optimal, it's more that the build rules funnel you towards a larger engine.

If you felt it really was desirable to have all engine sizes/speeds be represented at the competitive level (I am not convinced this is important), one way to do so would be to cut back to the number of engine sizes to something closer to the tabletop rules. That way, increasing your engine size is a massive commitment - unlike the current build system where you can convert your last couple tons and halfs into a free speed increase.

One advantage of makin smaller engines more competitive is it lowers the divide between new players and veterans, somethin the game could definitely use right now.

[N0MAD]

IMO, there is a certain size engine where going bigger has so small a benefit that its really not a worth while option.
Now this is opinion not fact but thru some testing with mates we found this.. an Atlas with a 300 engine vs one with 350 engine.
Speed was higher but only a max of slightly over 5kph, in combat the faster mech only gained a very slight noticeble advantage, as in he didnt speed away noticebly from slower mech. No increase in heat eficiency apart from the fact that he ran a bit cooler but this was due to less firepower. Having tried both i really didnt notice any real change in manuverability or torso turn again if it was there to me it wasnt noticeble.
NOW the big difference was in Firepower, the 350s weight really restricted the outcome, i should say the loadout was based on 2xUtra AC5s, 2xMPL, 3xSRM6 with Arty (not interested in comments about the loadout) There was just no way to comfortably fit that on the 350, amo had to be reduced, size of SRMs reduce and or arty removed or simply removing heat syncs.The slight speed increase that the engine gave was IMO not worth the downgrading of firpower and heat efficiency not on a chassis whos true value i see as a tank with hard hitting firepower.
Again this is opinion from my own experience and some testing between a few friends..

[Protection]

N0MAD, on 12 February 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

IMO, there is a certain size engine where going bigger has so small a benefit that its really not a worth while option.
Now this is opinion not fact but thru some testing with mates we found this.. an Atlas with a 300 engine vs one with 350 engine.
Speed was higher but only a max of slightly over 5kph, in combat the faster mech only gained a very slight noticeble advantage, as in he didnt speed away noticebly from slower mech. No increase in heat eficiency apart from the fact that he ran a bit cooler but this was due to less firepower. Having tried both i really didnt notice any real change in manuverability or torso turn again if it was there to me it wasnt noticeble.
NOW the big difference was in Firepower, the 350s weight really restricted the outcome, i should say the loadout was based on 2xUtra AC5s, 2xMPL, 3xSRM6 with Arty (not interested in comments about the loadout) There was just no way to comfortably fit that on the 350, amo had to be reduced, size of SRMs reduce and or arty removed or simply removing heat syncs.The slight speed increase that the engine gave was IMO not worth the downgrading of firpower and heat efficiency not on a chassis whos true value i see as a tank with hard hitting firepower.
Again this is opinion from my own experience and some testing between a few friends..

Would you mind sharing your build via: http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab ?

[idle crow]

Protection, on 12 February 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

And all of which go much faster than stock, and much faster than what is considered slow. My question is how can we make slower designs more desirable? It's basically an obligation to put a 325/350 on an Atlas, a 290/295 XL on a Raven, a 250 or 260 on a Centurion or Hunchie. It's still ideal to keep anything at or above 250, and very sub-optimal to go below. Other designs are so much less well optimized they are beneath consideration, and it's a noticeable trend.

If we equalized DHS that would allow you to consider running slower then a 250. If every engine had 10 heat sinks base something smaller then 250 would also not cost you 6 additional crit spaces.

I also believe larger maps and Team Death Match so we do not have to worry about defending a fixed position could lead to far more options in mech design.

[Cato Phoenix]

For one, with DHS it's more heat efficient to go with 255+ engines because you get the max 2.0 sinks.

In comparison: Lightest engine you can possibly fit is an XL 100 + 6 heatsinks = 6.5 tons. Heat efficiencies are SHS= 10, DHS=16.4. And you'll be slow.

XL155 + 4 HS = 8 tons. HE SHS=10, DHS=17.6

XL 200 + 2 HS = 9.5 tons.HE: SHS=10, DHS=18.8. For 3 tons more than a 100 you get a 2x as fast engine, increasing turning/twist speed, and if running DHS a better heat efficiency. What other 3 tons of equipment do you have that justifies not taking that engine? In regards to the 155, because no one will realistically run a 100, you go 50% faster and have gotten an extra heatsink's worth for 1.5 tons.

XL 255=12.5 tons, HE: SHS=10, DHS=20. 6 tons here is more of an investment, but you get a lot more heat and speed. Compared to the 200 you pay 3 tons and get another heat sink and 1.5x speed. Bigger than this, of course, just pushes speed up, not heat.

You also save crits by not having to put extra heatsinks outside the engine, and the even bigger engines can save crits with their heatsink slots. This gives you more room for endo.

I think most people believe that the extra speed, with all of its ancillary benefits, is worth more than whatever other stuff you could put in for the tons.

[Gaan Cathal]

The sheer necessity of large engines does somewhat spoil the light game for me at the moment, I must admit. It's not gamebreaking or anything, but the idea of high engine tonnage for speed is that you can decrease it to spend those tons on, say, increased armament. The issue with that is that you currently can't in MWO, since the tons are invariably better spent on moar engine and minimum armament.

Unhooking accuracy from engine size would help this a lot (seriously, who came up with that? spend a few tons for free DHS, more speed and more accuracy?)

[N0MAD]

Hmmm ok, but im not claiming this is a good build,it suits me and i do quite well in it (most of the time). It is a warm build but its not that hard to manage heat. A cooler version would run 2x Med Lassers(istead of 2MPLs) and either more amo for ACs or Heatsyncs or a mixture of both.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...3bae3512c501f89

[ICEFANG13]

See that can be upgraded like this,
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...fe7cf58ca3d22db
Which makes you move slightly faster, and run nearly as cool, if you dropped on ton or switched to medium(s), then you could make it even better.

[BlackSquirrel]

Eh I think they should cap the engine size a bit more or per variant on heavy and above mechs. Also look to tweak how many engine heat sinks go on >= X. The impact is the greatest on medium mechs who 1. Need the greater speed, and 2. Lack the tonnage to really cram that engine in there.

That or make a risk involved in certain weight sizes suffering damage if they go faster than a certain speed.

[Protection]

ICEFANG13, on 13 February 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

See that can be upgraded like this,
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...fe7cf58ca3d22db
Which makes you move slightly faster, and run nearly as cool, if you dropped on ton or switched to medium(s), then you could make it even better.

Yep, speed increased by 5 kph, as well as torso twist and accuracy, at a cost of only one (1.4) heatsink (2% cooling efficiency less). It's not quite a 100% improvement, but trading 2% cooling for 5 kph is amazing value. And more armour as well.