96 replies to this topic

[FinsT]

CygnusX7, on 23 October 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

..and now it all makes sense.
Except.. how do you fit 4HS in a .5 ton mech engine?

Your question is understood.

Searching a fitting quote... search in progress... perfect match found! Please sing:

Magic - it's a kind of magic
It's a kind of magic
Magic magic magic (magic)
Ha ha ha haa - it's magic
Ha haa
Yeah yeah
Wooh
It's a kind of magic

%)

[Escef]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 October 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

Yeah... FYI Only the very basic "For brand new player" rules included the fist 10 sinks in BattleTech. So you are saying you cannot build a Mech any better than a Boot BattleTech player...

As the youngins say, lolwut? ALL of the rules in BT include the 10 heat sinks. ALL. OF. THEM.

MWO engine, gyro, and cockpit tonnages have been tweaked for light mechs to allow canon builds with the modified construction rules.

[kesmai]

NO
NO
NO
OP is so far from BATTLETECH™ rules that even pgi should not hear.
the horrid AC´s are stupid enough

[LoneUnknown]

Never bothered to upgrade to double heatsinks any of the three locusts, even the 4 energy one They all performed splendidly without them.

Did my commando grind way back in beta so I don't recall exactly, but pretty sure heat nor critical space was an issue with that mech either.

How much tonnage do you really gain with ferro on a mech that size? Probably about half a ton. Are you telling me that you simply cant fit double heat sinks if you really need them that bad?

So the very mechs you mention are not really hurt by using singles because they are not carrying crazy amounts of weaponry, and furthermore, the thought that you MUST use ferro to shave off that extra half ton, thus preventing room for double heatsinks, is kinda silly.

In other words, you're perceiving a problem with the system that does not exist in actuality.

Building light mechs is all about economy and squeezing the most performance from the least amount of resources. Many players can't seem to do it, but it's one of the things I love about them personally.

[Darling_In_The_MeXX]

Might I suggest that by weight your required HS is based upon the mech you use. That would make more sense since we want keep it EVEN right?

Thus

150 is the 10 HS cut off for Lt mechs

200 is the 10 HS cut off for the Med mechs

250 is the 10 HS cut off for the Hvy mechs

300 is the 10 HS cut off for the Ast mechs

This makes perfect sense as the weight of the engines as they are standard coincides perfectly with the weight of the mech it is putting them in. The extra HS slots would not change, they would remain as they are where 275-295 is 1 extra 300 is 2 and so on. This requires a better heat balance for the assault mechs, gives them less of a boost for having to run an engine that big anyways and the lighter mechs get a boost where light mechs need it the most and that is in firepower.

One cannot say that lights are fine when one half decent shot of the meta 2-PPC, AC/10 (or AC/20) instantly kills them. "Well the lights move faster and are harder to hit!" MY REPLY--> Well there are 4 meta mechs for each light which kill it with one alpha!

It is so bad that light mechs now have to run dual ER LL to avoid a massive alpha and shoot from the outskirts of the map.

Edited by Oblivion5000, 27 December 2013 - 02:37 PM.

[stjobe]

Oblivion5000, on 27 December 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

It is so bad that light mechs now have to run dual ER LL to avoid a massive alpha and shoot from the outskirts of the map.

To be fair though, it's been that way since at least open beta. I know I started to put LLs on my Commandos in the StreakCat days so I could keep my distance (before that they were viable with MLs and SRMs, but StreakCats were such a hard counter to lights with less than 270 range it wasn't even funny). I had ERPPCs on them in the PPC heyday, and one of my current favourite 'mandos is my 2xLL COM-3A.

It's another of the myriad of ways the bad weapon balance affects the whole game. Instant-hit weapons are the current meta (ACs, PPCs, GRs), ever thought about how many lights are able to carry those weapons? And how many are relying on lasers and SRMs?

[Neput Z34]

It would be nice if "they" (PGI/ Paul/ whoever) get rid of two tier system for double heatsinks.
Make them flat value regardless if they are internal or external (1.5 - 1.8), this way mechs with sub 250 rated engines are on even footing interms of heat / heatsink.

[Truesight]

Well, i chose no because... when the map pool hits caustic/Terra you can not do anything except for maybe with your mgs. If you still use SHS, you will heat up and explode without doing anything.

It is really bad on this maps with 10 DHS, let alone with less.

[Alex Warden]

gavilatius, on 23 October 2013 - 03:11 AM, said:

I think EVERY ENGINE SHOULD HAVE THEIR 10 HEATSINKS PREINSTALLED

GYRO WEIGHT WILL BE INDEPENDENT FROM CHASSIS AND ENGINE
COCKPIT WEIGHT WILL BE INDEPENDENT FROM CHASSIS AND ENGINE

that way when stuff like XL/Compact Gyros and Compact Cockpits come out, we won;t have to retool the system 2 years after the game is in Launch-Launch-Launch-Launch-Launch

nothing to add, +10

[Sable Phoenix]

Neput Z34, on 27 December 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

It would be nice if "they" (PGI/ Paul/ whoever) get rid of two tier system for double heatsinks.
Make them flat value regardless if they are internal or external (1.5 - 1.8), this way mechs with sub 250 rated engines are on even footing interms of heat / heatsink.

This would be the smart solution. But because of that, it won't be implemented. This is PGI, remember.

Edited by Sable Phoenix, 29 December 2013 - 04:04 AM.

[Victor Morson]

I think it should be removed entirely for the light weight class. Lights should be flat out immune to this rule because it makes designs like the Commando/Locust even bigger jokes!

[ice trey]

The more that MWO is like Battletech, the happier I am.

Battletech has always had a 10 heat sink minimum on 'mechs, but it never cost any tonnage to have 10 heat sinks.

It's a rare occurrence when those 10 SHS take up too much room on a Light, even with FF+ES

The more MW games are accurate to Battletech, the less frequently new players start nit-picking about tabletop things not being like their video game experience.

Edited by ice trey, 30 December 2013 - 12:18 AM.

[Krasnopesky]

Minimum heatsinks should be those that come pre-installed with the engine, very simple concept that would help the little guys.

[Kataiser]

I would agree 100% if not for one tiny problem.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...58012957c0340df

Or, if you like your cheese with extra cheese, you can always
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f739f016ff5b2b1

[wanderer]

Or, you know PGI could have not screwed up the construction system on engines in the first place.

C'mon. There's online TT 'Mech builders like Solaris Skunkwerks that don't kludge engine weighting.

FFS, you can't even build some light 'Mechs like the Urbanmech in MWO.

There's no need to alter min-sinkage. What needs fixing is an engine system that breaks at under-100 ratings.

Quote

Sure thing how small engine do you want to run those things with? both will die easily if they are too slow

If you remove the 10-min heat sinkage, it's only fair to allow larger 'Mechs the same courtesy. Gaussapults/Gaussjagers will <3 the extra tonnage when they barely need heat sinks to begin with.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 23 October 2013 - 03:06 AM, said:

Tonnage limits aren't going to make these builds better, they're just going to mean someone has to play a bad build so someone else can play a good build.

Are you volunteering to drop in the bad 20-tonner so your team mate can play the fun build?

Tonnage limits may well become a game-breaker for some people.

Has there ever been a Good 20 ton Mech? Locust has been the best for a long time, and the last one out is pretty much as good as any MW:O build.


LCT-6M The newest variant of the Locust, the 6M used a massive 280 Hermes XL Engine to propel it to an astounding speed of 226.8 km/h and was capable of bursts of speed reaching 302.4 km/h through a MASC system. The 6M used a Small Cockpit to save weight with the side effect of making the 'Mech harder to pilot and utilized Ferro-Fibrous armor to get the most of the light armor the 'Mech carried. It was armed with two Magna Mk VI ER Medium Lasers, which were backed up by a single Magna Mk IV ER Small Laser. The -6M was produced by Corean Enterprises on Stewart.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 27 February 2014 - 06:11 AM.

[TygerLily]

So, if I'm following correctly, could they fix it by just lowering some of the sub-250 engine weights to reflect the heatsinks that would need to be added?

[wanderer]

More appropriately, they need to make engines use a dynamic slot placement system like endo/ferro and weight engines accordingly.

Basically, you buy a sub-250 engine, it takes up the normal spacing +X "engine heat sinks", the spaces for which go to whatever's open (but can be moved but not REmoved unless you take the engine out. No more discounting engine weight by however many sinks it needs externally that way, which means that low engine ratings (basically below 100) go in properly. As it stands, that "discount" would make sub-100 engines weigh negative amounts.

245-225 takes up one "engine sink" extra space.
220-200 two, 195-175 three, 170-150 four,and so on.

[stjobe]

TygerLily, on 27 February 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

So, if I'm following correctly, could they fix it by just lowering some of the sub-250 engine weights to reflect the heatsinks that would need to be added?

No, they've already done that - that's why the sub-100 engines aren't possible; engine weight minus weight of heat sinks needed to get to 10 would go negative in their system.

In BT, a 100-rated STD engine weighs 3 tons, a gyro for it weighs 1 ton, and a cockpit weighs 3 tons; you get 4 heat sinks in the engine, and you need to allocate crit space but not weight for 6 heat sinks more before you're drop-legal. That's 3+1+3 = 7 tons.

In MWO gyro and cockpit are weight-free, but heat sinks are not. The 100-rated STD engine weighs 1 ton; you get 4 heat sinks in the engine, and you have to allocate crit space and tonnage for 6 more heat sinks before you're drop legal. That's 1+6 = 7 tons, so it matches the TT values.

The problem is with e.g. a STD 60-rated engine (like the one needed for the UrbanMech); that should weigh 1.5 tons, which with the 4 tons for gyro+cockpit would be 5.5 tons total. It would have 2 heat sinks in-engine, and need 8 more to be drop legal

In MWO, that engine would have to weigh -2.5 tons for the system to work out to 5.5 tons (-2.5 + 8 = 5.5).

[wanderer]

Bonus: If they made cockpits and gyros separate and removable parts, the later options for stuff like small cockpits and XL gyros would be ready to go, AND you could stop diddling around with kludges that break construction systems.

It's a shortcut that bit MWO in the backside.