Parts market and parts complexity

[acemarke]

Working on my first AtB campaign, and trying to get used to the MHQ interface.  I'm kind of confused by the amount of complexity in the parts list.  I can understand having distinct actuator and section types for each individual weight, but why does there need to be a combination of every possible size and tech engine for every possible unit weight?  That seems awfully redundant.  Why isn't there just *picks one at random* a single entry for IS 250 XL, instead of twenty separate entries for weights 5..100?

Given the size and amount of stuff in the parts market, it could use some additional filtering abilities - perhaps all parts for a given unit weight, tech base, etc.  Maybe even pick one of your units from a dropdown, and show all parts that fit that.

Related: the Overview "Parts in Use" is good, but it would be helpful if it also showed prices for items.

Any thoughts on the relative complexity of adding those changes?  Worst case, I could maybe take a stab at adding them myself.

[pheonixstorm]

As the overview tab is only part of a ralgith custom release and there are more important features that need to go in you may need to make those changes you want to see for parts in use yourself. As for the engines... I have no idea. As far back as I can remember the engines have been one size fits all. No clue it that changed in the rules or it is just something specific to HQ/MM

[Arkaris]

The reasons engines are broken down by weight is due to cost.  An engine that goes in to a 60 ton mech and the exact same engine that goes in to a 75 ton mech cost different based solely on the weight of the mech.  I have no idea why the btech universe works this way, but the ptb have said that they do, so each engine type also needs a mech weight type for cost purposes.

[Jayof9s]

The reasons engines are broken down by weight is due to cost.  An engine that goes in to a 60 ton mech and the exact same engine that goes in to a 75 ton mech cost different based solely on the weight of the mech.  I have no idea why the btech universe works this way, but the ptb have said that they do, so each engine type also needs a mech weight type for cost purposes.

Yep, that's it exactly, I posted about this just the other day in the btech forums, also the AtB section.

Unfortunately, the rules in the TechManual have made it so the 300 SFE used by an Ostroc is different than the 300 SFE used by a Marauder (and as far as I can recall this isn't actually a new rule). It's a very silly rule in my opinion but we aren't out to reinvent the wheel (even if TPTB made it a square wheel).

[ralgith]

[quote author=Arkaris link=topic=1783.msg11455#msg11455 date=1410283092]
The reasons engines are broken down by weight is due to cost.  An engine that goes in to a 60 ton mech and the exact same engine that goes in to a 75 ton mech cost different based solely on the weight of the mech.  I have no idea why the btech universe works this way, but the ptb have said that they do, so each engine type also needs a mech weight type for cost purposes.

Yep, that's it exactly, I posted about this just the other day in the btech forums, also the AtB section.

Unfortunately, the rules in the TechManual have made it so the 300 SFE used by an Ostroc is different than the 300 SFE used by a Marauder (and as far as I can recall this isn't actually a new rule). It's a very silly rule in my opinion but we aren't out to reinvent the wheel (even if TPTB made it a square wheel).
[/quote]

I've been meaning for some time to add an option that will short circuit this stupidity and base everything completely on engine rating.

[Jayof9s]

I've been meaning for some time to add an option that will short circuit this stupidity and base everything completely on engine rating.

The only issue is trying to take into consideration costs in relation to units for that unofficial rule. If you set it too high, all engines are going to be overpriced and smaller units are going to take a bigger hit (especially things like hovercraft and VTOLs that are capped at relatively light weights). If you set it too low, the more expensive units are going to start seeing a big discount (especially with XL and other special engine types).

I'd suggest trying it around 75 ton standard and seeing what that does to costs in general.

[ralgith]

[quote author=ralgith link=topic=1783.msg11457#msg11457 date=1410285314]
I've been meaning for some time to add an option that will short circuit this stupidity and base everything completely on engine rating.

The only issue is trying to take into consideration costs in relation to units for that unofficial rule. If you set it too high, all engines are going to be overpriced and smaller units are going to take a bigger hit (especially things like hovercraft and VTOLs that are capped at relatively light weights). If you set it too low, the more expensive units are going to start seeing a big discount (especially with XL and other special engine types).

I'd suggest trying it around 75 ton standard and seeing what that does to costs in general.
[/quote]

Actually I was going to do costs as an average of all costs from 5t up to 100t

[MagnusEffect]

[quote author=Jayof9s link=topic=1783.msg11456#msg11456 date=1410284669]
[quote author=Arkaris link=topic=1783.msg11455#msg11455 date=1410283092]
The reasons engines are broken down by weight is due to cost.  An engine that goes in to a 60 ton mech and the exact same engine that goes in to a 75 ton mech cost different based solely on the weight of the mech.  I have no idea why the btech universe works this way, but the ptb have said that they do, so each engine type also needs a mech weight type for cost purposes.

Yep, that's it exactly, I posted about this just the other day in the btech forums, also the AtB section.

Unfortunately, the rules in the TechManual have made it so the 300 SFE used by an Ostroc is different than the 300 SFE used by a Marauder (and as far as I can recall this isn't actually a new rule). It's a very silly rule in my opinion but we aren't out to reinvent the wheel (even if TPTB made it a square wheel).
[/quote]

I've been meaning for some time to add an option that will short circuit this stupidity and base everything completely on engine rating.
[/quote]

I for one would greatly appreciate this simplification of engines.  You should probably do something similar for other spare parts such as limbs,actuators, etc.  Having to keep track of individual parts with the original rules is a huge pain in the ass.