145 replies to this topic

[N0MAD]

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.

Ya we all value different things its why i stated that i wasnt interested in debating the build, but since its a polite post and indeed a good point i will comment.
The 4.5kph increase to ME is negligable and i doubt there is any noticeble increase in turning(personal opinion) and because i drive this loadout often i can tell you that heat is on the brink now removing another sync i will tell you most likely would take it over the edge in heat efficiency causing a reduced Sustained DPS. Bigest difference i see in the build is my version has more options available, if i go with 2 MLas instead of the MPlas i have the room to add 2 Syncs making it extremely heat eficient thus increasing sustained DPS, again if i went with 1 Sync and another ton of amo i would get a similar outcome. With your version if you went with the MLas you cannot add Syncs therefore altho you gain a marginal + to heat because of the Mlas its still nowhere near as heat eficient, therefore i argue this would lower sustained DPS. Also you only have the room to add Amo no syncs and to me personally stacking 3 tons of amo in any upper area is asking for a large amo explosion, yes i know i have 1 ton in all upper areas but 3 ton in 1 area makes me nervous. So while the mechs have same Armor, Firepower, Amo, i sacrifice 4.5kph for Options and Sustained DPS.
So the short version, i trade 4.5kph for Options and Heat eficiency which means beter Sustained DPS.
Each to his own.

Edited by N0MAD, 13 February 2013 - 07:04 PM.

[Parnage Winters]

Gotta agree with Nomad on this one, when you are talking about 4-5kph change it's not a huge factor. If you got blasted moving at 61kph, moving at 64 is not going to of changed that situation. *shrug*

Now that's not to say a problem doesn't exist and I'd like to see some loosening on the engine size determines torso speed twisting.

Edited by Parnage, 13 February 2013 - 08:06 PM.

[ICEFANG13]

Yeah I know it wasn't perfect upgrades, but it was nearly, its just an example how Endo+FF can make a mech really up its engine cap at no cost to you.

[Norris J Packard]

Parnage, on 13 February 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

Gotta agree with Nomad on this one, when you are talking about 4-5kph change it's not a huge factor. If you got blasted moving at 61kph, moving at 64 is not going to of changed that situation. *shrug*

Now that's not to say a problem doesn't exist and I'd like to see some loosening on the engine size determines torso speed twisting.

It has nothing to do with the speed, but everything to do with acceleration, deceleration, torso-twist speed, cornering, etc.

And if you're bumping up from an odd engine (i.e. something between a quarter) it makes a lot of sense to do so.

[N0MAD]

As far as Acceleration/ Decel goes im not quite sure but i dont think Engine affects it, and i dont know but i actually turned down my mouse speed (which affects torso twist speed) as i personally find it more accurate at the lower speed (torso twist speed is rediculously fast IMO).
But again each to his own.

[ownka]

The average mech in this game is already painfully slow. What do you want?

[Norris J Packard]

N0MAD, on 13 February 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

As far as Acceleration/ Decel goes im not quite sure but i dont think Engine affects it, and i dont know but i actually turned down my mouse speed (which affects torso twist speed) as i personally find it more accurate at the lower speed (torso twist speed is rediculously fast IMO).
But again each to his own.

It does.

[ScholarHim]

Asmudius Heng, on 11 February 2013 - 09:45 PM, said:

Battlevalue balancing should be there no matter what, but i still think that it should not be a way to deal with the engine issue. The size of your engine should be a true tactical choice. Going slow should not be a punishment - it should be an option that balances out with more firepower, or better heat management through exta tonnage for HS or more ammo etc .that make it worthwhile.

Real choices, pros and cons are desperatly needed in this game or it becomes an arms race

EDIT: Spelling

I have to agree with you. I think a good solution would be to have 1 bonus per engine, either turning speed or heat sincs on both engine types, but not both, unless tonnage is huge. Also, you could have small engines that have no bonuses, but have their tonnage decreased. That would give more variety to the engine choice, and hopefully give a purpose to smaller engines.

[OneEyed Jack]

Spinning Burr, on 11 February 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

Cataphracts and Catapults need to move 80+.

I doubt there's many CTFs out there moving 80+. Even with speed tweak that takes a 315 or better. Considerably larger than would fit in any of the decent builds I've ever seen, even with XL. Personally, I experiment a lot and I tried larger engines in my Ilya. I found the loss in firepower made the speed gains pretty irrelevant. The biggest I've ever put in anything I'd call a viable build was a 300. Beyond that the weight per increment becomes too large for my taste.

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

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

• Increased Heat efficiency via more heatsinks the higher the engine rating.

This only applies up to a 250, which I'd consider pretty mid-sized. I'd say that heat efficiency, outside of the number of additional heatsinks gained from a 275+ is not relevant to the discussion.

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

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.

Asmudius Heng, on 11 February 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

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.

Actually, in TT the first 10 HS cost no tonnage, only space if they didn't fit int he engine. In MWO they changed it for some reason, reducing the engine weight by the difference in HS (i.e.: a 200 rated engine would weigh 2 tons more but the 2 extra heat sinks required would weigh nothing).

If they required large engine to place the extra HS, it would make many Assaults unplayable, as their crit space is already incredibly limited and they require large engines to make it to the fight before it's over, let alone maneuver once they're there.

One Medic Army, on 11 February 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

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.

I'd say it has more to do with allowing a good variance between slow-ish and fast smaller mechs while keeping every single larger mech from carrying a 400 (in TT which didn't have engine caps, but is where the numbers derive from). Especially when the engines always had to be in multiple of the mech's tonnage.

AndyHill, on 11 February 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

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.

They didn't make the mechs hot so much as allow them to fire faster because a 10 second cycle time on every weapon would be boring. Fire discipline is supposed to be a big part of heat management.

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

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!

This would only benefit a few light builds that I don't think need the help. Ok, maybe the Spider-5K, but what's it going to use the tonnage on? Mounting a AC a little easier? Do you really think that COM-2D's need a couple extra tons to play with?

Personally, I'd rather see them go the other way and institute the extra heat from engine crits.

[AndyHill]

OneEyed Jack, on 14 February 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:

They didn't make the mechs hot so much as allow them to fire faster because a 10 second cycle time on every weapon would be boring. Fire discipline is supposed to be a big part of heat management.

This is a bit off topic at least partially, but I'd like to point out that in my opinion

1) The fear of 10 second reload times is unfounded because
a) WoT is an exciting as well as an incredibly popular game with loading times in that ballpark.
b ) 'mechs usually carry a number of weapons, which means you would be firing at a couple of seconds intervals or even more often - which is more hectic than what we have now. While also preventing you from firing pinpoint alphas (if the heat cap is low enough), which would be a game mechanics win-win (if you are looking to have hectic gameplay as well as a smooth transition from TT rules to real-time sim).

2) I think the weapons can be considered quite hot, since their heat production is about tripled compared to TT while the heat sinks' ability has been reduced.

3) Heat management as it is in MWO is done in the 'mechlab, not on the battlefield. There are no gradual tradeoffs between speed, accuracy and risk of shutdown / ammo explosion like in TT, so the only thing to do in combat is to avoid shutting down. And if you're not firing in combat due to overheating, your are not managing your heat but have already failed it. Of course some builds are supposed to be on the hot side, but if you end up holding off from firing more often than you'd like, it indicates that you need to start heat management operations (go to the 'mechlab and reduce weapon load in favor of adding heat sinks).

...(getting back to topic)

I think the relevant issues for this discussion are 2) and 3). Heat is a big issue, which means you're unlikely to have too much heat dissipation capability in just about any design. As far as engine size goes, this means that since double sinks are just better and the 10 internal ones even betterer, you really shouldn't have less than 250 on any design unless there are really good reasons stating otherwise. This is especially meaningful for the smaller 'mechs, since a 250 can't be considered a huge engine for bigger 'mechs.

Because of the way heat works in MWO, you want to cram as much double sinks into your 'mech as possible, making space considerations very important on bigger 'mechs. Since weapons are hot, you're usually better off taking smaller, efficient weapons anyway (taking lots of big guns is practically out of the question) so you're likely to have some weight available (not much loss) for the big engine that offers speed (win), maneuverability (win) and cooling crits (WIN).

...and I think that's what the OP thought of when he started the thread and I think it's a valid point. I'm not yet convinced that anything should be done to the engines themselves, however, since I think the situation as I see it is merely a symptom of the game mechanisms in play (heat balance) and any well intended fixes would just take us further away from the point where I think the balance was originally lost (when it was decided to make the weapons run very hot).

Edited by AndyHill, 14 February 2013 - 05:03 AM.

[John MatriX82]

I think that stock engines (and variants) always sucked and they'll always suck.. unfortunately.

I see stock engine configurations to be good only when you need to save up money or you want room (take and Atlas with the usual 300 STD) for several DHS without dealing with the 14 crits eaten up by ENDO.

Besides this, I agree that you'll probably never see in a competitive play a hunchback with 200 std.. simply put whenever you want serious firepower you need DHS, and any engine with ratings below 250 limits your choices and takes away the possibility to obtain 10x 2.0 cooling efficiency DHSs. The next consequence is that to save up some weight for your weapons and you want some resistance, you'll go for ENDO+STD engines. Better, STD engines with ratings that allow to place a further (or more) DHS within the engine that you would not be able to place outside due to ENDO.

I don't even take into consideration the benefits of larger engines.. whenever I fall back to a 300 std on an Atlas (or even 325 bulds) I feel it as a moving brick compared when I use my usual 335 or 350 rated engine builds. You turn, torso twist, take aim, enter in cover and cover up distances.. faster.

I think it's normal, and there shouldn't be anything to change in this... with the actual system what I'd change are the poor stock loadouts, but most of them stick to TT and devs want people to spend cbills on the upgrades for them..

..but the above is a consequence on how heat works in the actual ballast system.. Things heat up a lot, therefore you're left with few options.

Edited by John MatriX82, 14 February 2013 - 05:31 AM.

[Runenstahl]

As with everything that could use tweaking I'd advice to do it in little step. Just giving mechs a fixed torso/arm movement could already serve to make slower builds much more viable.

In the TT is was most often best to go for a slow mech just to fit in more weapons. I DO like that this isn't true for MWO (would be boring). And while I don't agree with every build I see (I would never upgrade my Atlas beyond a 300 engine) the OP is correct that the average speed for most mechs is still higher then it was in TT. I highly doubt that slow moving light mechs for example (Panther or Urbanmech) would have any chance of survival right now.

It's not THAT big of deal, but some small changes might help it to where every speed would have it's use. Personally changing twist rates to a fixed value (not based on engine) would be my favorite "solution".

[MechWarrior071507]

you're punished on multiple variables for taking a slower engine, and you're boosted in multiple variables for taking a faster engine.

So yes, they want the game to be Speed Brawler Online.

[zraven7]

"What? Bigger, more expensive engines provide benefit? Absurd! Nerf this immediately!!"

...yeah. sure.

[MechWarrior071507]

zraven7, on 14 February 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

"What? Bigger, more expensive engines provide benefit? Absurd! Nerf this immediately!!"

...yeah. sure.

engines used to provide only higher velocity for weight. Now they provide faster turn and faster twist and faster convergence.

[Lukoi Banacek]

@ Andy

While I'm not saying I agree that all Cats/Phracts need to go 80kph+ all of mine do and I do extremely well in them. In fact the Mech I do the absolute best in (highest KDR, longest survival rate, most damage per match, most assists etc) is the Phract -1x that I pilot at 86.6kph (tweaked obviously) and with all energy weapons.

Different pilots go with with different needs/personalizations and in our particular crew, all of us playing 70t or below are playing the fastest versions of those builds we can manage. We like the speed. Our Assaults (minus Awesomes) are the only place you'll find slow movers....and we try to treat them as mobile islands we stay close to (better in theory than in practice so far but we're still getting the hang of it) or screen in front of.

p.s. I still see no reason to reward someone for taking a smaller engine or any logical reason to "balance" them upwards in some performance metric. Speed does not necessarily equate to brawling and in fact can be the only factor that allows a team to maintain any sort of stand off (which I see regularly in 8mans). I also don't see any reason to upwardly reward people who boat MG's for example, when they could spend the tonnage/heat to get heavier, more damaging ballistics. Balance doesn't mean all builds/options are equal or fair (nor should they be).

Edited by Lukoi, 14 February 2013 - 06:19 AM.

[Elfman]

How about if they inverted the Turn and torso twist speed - the larger the engine size the slower it can change direction due to mass.

Pilot a 4x and a 3d and the 3d seems like a gazelle compared to the 4x which drives more like a Assault mech.

It would seem a better approach would be (as TT does not have twist speed) to have all mechs of a chassis have the same twist speed irelevant of engine size

Edited by Elfman, 14 February 2013 - 07:08 AM.

[ICEFANG13]

I'm a fan of making HS free weight if the engine is below 10, I also like the stuck torso twist range.

[Whompity]

I think it depends on the style of play you possess, as well... I run 330 standard in my 2X and with tweaks have 80kph+ as well and usually aim to be a flanker... moving between cover to get alongside or behind the enemy and hit them quickly while staying moving. I drop a lot of firepower for that, but what I do have I make count... don't fire that AC/20 until you're sure it'll hit... hopefully into someone's back. I love my 2X.

[semalferuzA]

If you run a smaller engine you can fit heavier weapons. Too bad you can't get enough heat sinks for it to matter.