I suggested this in the old forum, but I still think it’s a good idea, especially with the speed changes.
Concept: instead of being limited to one engine, we would only be limited to one of each engine.
Would allow for much more build diversity, and would let us all regain some of the speed we lost in the recent changes.
I realize this would lead to a lot of power creep, especially at high PS, but I would argue that hardcore and red hot are both very accessible to most players (it seems likely that most players won’t want to spend more than one energy point on engines, even if they were allowed to).
I know Sigma is going to say this is a bad idea, but I’m curious what others think (I’m even curious about his criticisms).
It could be done as a single item though as a different type of side crafting/upgrade path maybe. Such as take 3 or so hot reds to crafting and pop out a twin hot red engine. Pro’s of this is it’s still technically 1 engine and there isn’t any code to change as far as restrictions go. Cons are it doesn’t offer as much diversity. The stat’s and energy draw could be reworked in full too such as +1 energy and a PS bump to go with it. It’s hard to say if it is worth doing though.
I agree that would be more realistic, but I fear that we would get into some really wonky situations if players could stack the same engine perk multiple times.
The perks would have to be adjusted too but I figured that was kind of obvious with how I was saying it. Kind of like how there’s a module efficiency upgrade for most other equipment but it doesn’t double the actual efficiency. How much the perks need to be adjusted really depends on the perks but there aren’t that many engines to start with. So I don’t see that being a huge workload.
The other thing to think about is would this get in the way of legendary engines and or should the engines be respaced out to allow for something like this as it would extend their usefulness especially in lower rarity engines.
That seems like it would add too many complications, at least compared to my suggestion.
I am wondering if the game might get too fast if we were allowed to use multiple engines?
A possible way to address this would be to allow tonnage, power, and mass limit stats to stack when using multiple engines, but the top speed would be set by the fastest engine on your car.
That would be a fair bit of extra code for the same effect that could otherwise just be worked out as data points. The same complications exist in both ideas.
I think I’m more concerned about them potentially getting in the way of legendary engines than I am about the game being too fast though as they can always tune down cabs to limit the top end speeds. If something odd like this was ever really played around with.
If legendary engines are added, I don’t think my concept would make sense any more, except that it would allow for some cool looking cars, and also allow lower level players to compete with legendary engines.
If legendary engines are coming, I hope they add a few at once, otherwise build diversity at high level will suffer.
Maybe they could get away with just one legendary engine, if we could at least double up the lower level ones.
Honestly, I would love to see builds like that! I mostly play light cabins for the speed, but I also enjoy the feel of piloting giant heavy builds. Yokozuna had given me a taste of high speed heavy cabin action, and I would like to take advantage of that more.
That’s why I mentioned respacing the engines out. I think it could still probably work even with more legendary engines so long as the perks are different enough. Similar costs could be applied for the alternative upgrade path as it would to to say craft a legendary but instead you boost the lower tier engine up basically 1 rarity space as a twin engine with some stat changes and perk enhancements (or additions if lower tier)… Then there would be more variability going up the tech tree.
I agree, plus setting some specific limits will prevent exploiting the system.
Like you said, identical engines cannot be mounted, so identical perks cannot be stacked.
To prevent heavy cabins from simply zooming around the battlefield as unstoppable high-speed trains all the time, a cumulative hard cap of +30% to top speed could be set (limiting the fastest heavy cabins to 84.5 kph, w/out the Yokozuna’s perk).
To prevent bugs & other issues from occurring from excessive acceleration, a cumulative hard cap of +100% to cabin power could be set.
The specific values I proposed could be adjusted as necessary, of course, but it would at least be a good start.
I’d go with one of each rarity, so you can use an epic and a special engine. That would both remedy the literally r3t4rd3d speed nerf and to give the special engine a purpose.
Remove energy drain from engines but make their powerscore increase a percentage. I really don’t know why they drain energy when the cab’s engine produces it.
I am pretty sure it will cause a very toxic meta on heavy build - as of now “heavy canon tank” is already the most reasonably build in terms of effort/result. Heavy armor was buffed, you only craft 2 weapons etc.
I am amazed how incredibly detached many players here are - I am aware of selection bias - but a regular player is not paying premium or grinding towards 4-epics build.
Heavy build require much MUCH less tiem to build beacuse an Imp and a Mammoth take same resources to build but you only need 2 of canons instead fo 4 MGs. For this reason heavy builds are already at advantage that is slightly offset by speed/acceleration. Ability to add multiple engines would extremely empower the “single weapon builds” for whcih tehre already are perks. So build divercity would go down.
I don’t think I would agree that heavy builds have the advantage over light and medium builds (at least not at the PS ranges I play).
One of the big reasons I want multiple engines is that currently vehicles tend to get slower the higher PS you play at. Multiple engines would change this, as lower PS would still be single engine builds, while upper PS would see lots of multiple engine builds, which would allow our big monster machines to also accelerate quickly.
I’m not sure how it would impact the 8000-9000 PS range. I suspect some players would keep to one engine in that range, but others might get rid of armour and movement parts to justify the speed of multiple engines.
How many month of scrap grinding does it take to build 4 Epic wepons vs. only 2? Advantage ist not “technical” in a sense of build superiority - it is in the much more easier crafting path.
How many month of scrap grinding does it take to build 4 Epic wepons vs. only 2? Advantage ist not “technical” in a sense of build superiority - it is in the much more easier crafting path. And buidl diversicty is first and foremost about what is easy to build. Few people are spending a year of grinding to just test new legendaries on suspicion it might work.
Ah, I see you are talking more about the difference between 6 energy weapons and 3 energy weapons.
I’m still not sure I agree.
Sure, MGs need cooling, but cannons need reload boosters and ammo. Plus, the market can make some weapons more affordable than their crafting cost suggests.
Regardless, I find I can usually grind out an epic item a week, so getting new toys isn’t that hard.
It’s generally better to work your way up from rare to special to epic anyways, which means you don’t have to wait weeks to have a full build. Just upgrade each gun when you have the resources, and combine rarities until you have the full set.
I’m really not sure why you think multiple engines would make cannons stronger. I would also argue that cannons aren’t particularly strong right now. I see a lot more MGs and SGs than cannons in most matches.