145 replies to this topic

[AndyHill]

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.

Yes this is of course true and if I was unclear, exactly what I meant. That's why I also mentioned that it's especially true in bigger 'mechs that tend to be space limited when running doubles (always).

[ICEFANG13]

One Medic Army, on 11 February 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:

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.

Oh I'm sorry, a bit of miscommunication here. Engine heatsinks, ones truly build in, are 2.0, heatsinks you place into the engine are 1.4, as well as the outside.

[Syncline]

Give all engines, regardless of class, 10 integral heat sinks. All the sudden, it's a really difficult decision whether or not you commit so much tonnage to a chassis, because you aren't going to get 12 (or however many you end up getting with your big engine) free critical slots for double heat sinks.

[One Medic Army]

Syncline, on 11 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

Give all engines, regardless of class, 10 integral heat sinks. All the sudden, it's a really difficult decision whether or not you commit so much tonnage to a chassis, because you aren't going to get 12 (or however many you end up getting with your big engine) free critical slots for double heat sinks.

It was like this in early Closed Beta.
Essentially it killed energy heavy loadouts for assault mechs completely.

[AndyHill]

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

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).

Oh and you're also making another good point I can't resist to reply to although it's perhaps not really a part of this discussion. Personally I think that the biggest challenge in converting the dice-throwing turn based TT game mechanism into a simulation is pin-point alpha damage. You can do serious damage into one spot in a very short time in most MW computer games, which makes the armor rules of the TT game a bit wonky.

What really, really bothers me about MWO is that they made the mechs seriously hot, skewing the balance of big guns and heat sinks, while simultaneously allowing extreme pinpoint alphas. I do enjoy the game, don't get me wrong, but I think they should make a complete rethink of the weapons balance / game mechanisms related to heat / damage output. The big engine fetishism is just one, fairly inconsequential symptom of the main problem that (I think) is making the game less rich in choices and variability.

Edited by AndyHill, 11 February 2013 - 11:42 PM.

[CrashieJ]

I say get rid of the 10 HS minimum. if they want to **** away with 6 let them, if they can get away with it and win... HUZZAH!

[TheFlyingScotsman]

It isn't that slower class engines are being overlooked at all. In pugs (less commonly) and organized matches, LRM boats take slower engines, often standard. Many very skilled players use STD lower-than-top speed engines very effectively in phracts and cats, and many centurion pilots use STD engines to "zombie" and keep fighting without arms or side torsos.

A lot of the builds you see in the forums are builds that stand out. Mostly, they are gimmicks like the splat cat or the StreakCat. Hyper-competitive builds like these don't float as well in comp matches because they are limited in many situations and represent an extreme at the cost of survivability, heat dispersion, or range.

The best mech is one that takes survivability, speed and weaponry and balances it all out in a way that you feel comfortable with when you are piloting.

Edited by TheFlyingScotsman, 11 February 2013 - 11:46 PM.

[Komtur]

Everyone can configure his Mech like he want.
This is important for me!

Some weeks ago, I configured one Atlas with a very small engine, so he can run only 35 km/h, but he has full armor and some very big weapons. It works fine, but it is important to have some team players for support against fast enemy Mechs.

If we say: every Mech has this engines, this DHS, this .... and this ... we will have only 10 different Mechs and with 2 different configurations. All Mechs have nearly the same speed, the same armor and so on ..... nooooooooooo!

I don't want to have to much limits.

[Asmudius Heng]

Komtur, on 11 February 2013 - 11:52 PM, said:

I don't want to have to much limits.

A petulant cry ... also completely off topic as no one is talking about any sorts of limits or restrictions - just if the current way engines are balances is good or not.

So ... yea ...

[ICEFANG13]

Komtur, on 11 February 2013 - 11:52 PM, said:

Everyone can configure his Mech like he want.
This is important for me!

Some weeks ago, I configured one Atlas with a very small engine, so he can run only 35 km/h, but he has full armor and some very big weapons. It works fine, but it is important to have some team players for support against fast enemy Mechs.

If we say: every Mech has this engines, this DHS, this .... and this ... we will have only 10 different Mechs and with 2 different configurations. All Mechs have nearly the same speed, the same armor and so on ..... nooooooooooo!

I don't want to have to much limits.

The thing is, if you link the build, you can probably make it strictly better and faster and cooler, not always, but probably.

[FiveDigits]

If you'd want smaller engines to be viable you'd have to

• remove the 10 heat sink minimum.
  
• make all DHS 2.0 (so it's no longer mandatory to get at least a 250 for 10 internal 2.0 DHS).
  
• make torso twist speed dependant solely on chassis, not engine.

[darkfall13]

For me the biggest draw to large engines in assaults is the added benefit of faster twist. It's too much of a liability already being that big and slow and to add insult to injury a terrible twist speed.

[Alex Warden]

my opinion: the engine rating nerf during CBT was necessary... but now, i think it´s okay as it is...it´s all in a reasonable frame imho

Edited by Alex Warden, 12 February 2013 - 12:47 AM.

[idle crow]

One of the reasons you don't see competitive mechs running less then a 250 is 2.0 engine DHS. Another reason is the base capture mechanic. We don't have team death match. You have to be able to position to stop a cap or counter cap.

PGI also included free crit spacing in bonus engine DHS slots. You basically get to a point your heat cap on a build. Further weapons would do you no good. So you fit in a larger engine for more heat efficiency.

If your brawling speed is required to get in range. If your sniping speed is needed to keep away from the brawlers as long as possible.

If anything the current engine restrictions have slowed down mechs that otherwise go faster.

[Protection]

TheFlyingScotsman, on 11 February 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

It isn't that slower class engines are being overlooked at all. In pugs (less commonly) and organized matches, LRM boats take slower engines, often standard. Many very skilled players use STD lower-than-top speed engines very effectively in phracts and cats, and many centurion pilots use STD engines to "zombie" and keep fighting without arms or side torsos.

A lot of the builds you see in the forums are builds that stand out. Mostly, they are gimmicks like the splat cat or the StreakCat. Hyper-competitive builds like these don't float as well in comp matches because they are limited in many situations and represent an extreme at the cost of survivability, heat dispersion, or range.

The best mech is one that takes survivability, speed and weaponry and balances it all out in a way that you feel comfortable with when you are piloting.

Didn't read/understand the thread.

Komtur, on 11 February 2013 - 11:52 PM, said:

Everyone can configure his Mech like he want.
This is important for me!

Some weeks ago, I configured one Atlas with a very small engine, so he can run only 35 km/h, but he has full armor and some very big weapons. It works fine, but it is important to have some team players for support against fast enemy Mechs.

If we say: every Mech has this engines, this DHS, this .... and this ... we will have only 10 different Mechs and with 2 different configurations. All Mechs have nearly the same speed, the same armor and so on ..... nooooooooooo!

I don't want to have to much limits.

Didn't read/understand the thread.

idle crow, on 12 February 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

One of the reasons you don't see competitive mechs running less then a 250 is 2.0 engine DHS. Another reason is the base capture mechanic. We don't have team death match. You have to be able to position to stop a cap or counter cap.

PGI also included free crit spacing in bonus engine DHS slots. You basically get to a point your heat cap on a build. Further weapons would do you no good. So you fit in a larger engine for more heat efficiency.

If your brawling speed is required to get in range. If your sniping speed is needed to keep away from the brawlers as long as possible.

If anything the current engine restrictions have slowed down mechs that otherwise go faster.

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.

[One Medic Army]

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.

We really can't. It's built into the speed by tonnage and engine power and engine weights which are all pulled straight from TT rules.

[AndyHill]

As long as there are no real benefits to taking a smaller engine the question is not "how big an engine should I take", it's "how big an engine can I take". With a bigger engine you generally get speed, maneuverability AND firepower, of course up to a point. As long as there are no real tradeoffs involved, that point is going to be quite high for most.

[Kobold]

Is it too late for me to chime in and say we need BV balancing?

In tabletop, high speed/maneuverability usually meant high BV, for a reason.

[Apoc1138]

in lights and mediums I usually take the biggest/nearest "25" engine I can (for the heatsinks / heatsink slots), but in all my assault mechs I'm running either the standard or slightly reduced engine to fit more weapons/ammo/heatsinks/armour

there's a huge difference between 65 and 90kph, but from 50 to 60... not so much

[Galathon Redd]

Engine size actually depends on your build. Simply put, brawlers of any size want fast engines - you do less damage if you can't get to your target or if it outmaneuvers you. And there are a lot of brawlers out there right now, thus a lot of people are going to be running upgraded engines.

Snipers and LRM boats care a little less. The weapons cover the distance, not you, and if you get attacked by something faster than you, your teammates should be able to bail you out. Of course, by the time that happens, hopefully your sniping/spamming skills have given your team the breathing room they'll need to save your a$$.

My Atlas-RS is currently a 4-ERPPC sniper with a smaller-than-stock engine (280). Slow as moosepoop (45KPH; good God, it takes an act of congress to get it somewhere), but consistent in generating good results; it doesn't need speed to perform well in its intended role - a (slightly) mobile heavy weapons turret filled with long-distance "surprise sex."