189 replies to this topic

[MeiSooHaityu]

Mercules, on 22 December 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

It's can't do that because with 10 DHS it rapidly overheats with any sort of sustained firing. Usually long before you would have killed an assault if you and it are not standing still for perfect aim on one location and you never stand still in a Locust. So giving you the ability to put on less HS would allow you to make a crappier build.

The 1Vs Heat efficiency is almost 1.8 with 1ERLLaser and 2 MGs. I think running 9 heat sinks and using that additional 1 ton for 2 more MGs wouldnt add much more heat, plus the 2 extra MGs would be much more helpful if the battle came to you.

Maybe I'd have to try it to see if that 1 heatsink would be crucial, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be. 4 MGs vs 2,on the other hand would be nice. Ammo would only go half as far, but the 1V would only need it for close in defense (since it is mostly a long range sniper/harraser), I think it would be enough.

Look, I know most mechs wouldn't benefit much from breaking the 10 heatsink rule, but dome really small lights might benefit depending on the build (especially if they were quirked to run cooler anyway).

[Mercules]

MeiSooHaityu, on 22 December 2014 - 05:44 AM, said:

The 1Vs Heat efficiency is almost 1.8 with 1ERLLaser and 2 MGs. I think running 9 heat sinks and using that additional 1 ton for 2 more MGs wouldnt add much more heat, plus the 2 extra MGs would be much more helpful if the battle came to you.

Maybe I'd have to try it to see if that 1 heatsink would be crucial, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be. 4 MGs vs 2,on the other hand would be nice. Ammo would only go half as far, but the 1V would only need it for close in defense (since it is mostly a long range sniper/harraser), I think it would be enough.

Look, I know most mechs wouldn't benefit much from breaking the 10 heatsink rule, but dome really small lights might benefit depending on the build (especially if they were quirked to run cooler anyway).

That 1.8 Heat Effciency isn't accurate. That would be accurate if the quirk wasn't increasing the speed of firing. In running my 1V I was considering stripping the MGs to add more DHS, not less. Notice, the 1V gets a weapon cooldown so it can fire fast, but not heat quirk to help it maintain that. It heats up rapidly.

[El Bandito]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

That is the rule for Easy Mode TT play. Meaning the most basic of basic play... "CBT for Dummies" if you will! You want easy mode play that is specifically for boots?

MWO as a whole is an easy mode point-and-click adventure with pin-point precision, instead of dice rolling. I see nothing wrong with implementing Light Efficiency to help 20-25 ton mechs.

The whole game environment is so far away from the board game, many of the rules should not be adhered to as if they are the Bible.

Edited by El Bandito, 22 December 2014 - 05:53 AM.

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 04:09 AM, said:

STOP TRYING TO REWRITE THE IPs 30 YEAR LONG MECHANICS CAUSE YOU DONE LIKE THEM.

Thank you! This has been a public service announcement.

Do you have a suggestion to make sub-250 engines less crappy in MWO then or are you just resisting change?

Utilyan, on 22 December 2014 - 05:06 AM, said:

Easy fix is quirks. Quirks is magics.

Quirk "Light Efficiency" - All engines contain the equivalent of 10 heatsinks

That's missing the point, also not something that's particularly fair either because at least with my idea there are consequences for having less heatsinks.

MeiSooHaityu, on 22 December 2014 - 05:31 AM, said:

I see no problem in the 10 heatsink rule MOST of the time.

The only exception I would be ok with, is ignoring the rule for mechs 25 tons and under. IMO, with the mechanics in place in MWO, those really light mech could use all the help they can get.

Other than that, no, keep the rule as is.

It makes little sense to make an exception only for <30 ton mechs, since as I already demonstrated it's not just an issue for them.

Mercules, on 22 December 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

It's can't do that because with 10 DHS it rapidly overheats with any sort of sustained firing. Usually long before you would have killed an assault if you and it are not standing still for perfect aim on one location and you never stand still in a Locust. So giving you the ability to put on less HS would allow you to make a crappier build.

Firing 1 ERLL does not rapidly overheat the mech with 10 DHS, and it wouldn't be a big problem with less heatsinks either.

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

Umm That would be the mandatory 10 heat sinks That the OP is requesting. He is requesting a change to a 30 year system that works fine as it was written. But since it is a burden to some to play within the rules. Folks have been playing Lights with 10 sinks for decades without trouble. So the requested change is not needed. Nor should it be implemented.

What I see is a system that gives multiple mechs the shaft if they don't have a 250+ rated engine, and that 30 year old system you're referring to is for Tabletop, which isn't what this game is.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Mercules, on 22 December 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

That 1.8 Heat Effciency isn't accurate. That would be accurate if the quirk wasn't increasing the speed of firing. In running my 1V I was considering stripping the MGs to add more DHS, not less. Notice, the 1V gets a weapon cooldown so it can fire fast, but not heat quirk to help it maintain that. It heats up rapidly.

Yes, it does not take fire rate into consideration.

I however notice that I generally can't sustain a large string of fire on an opponent. Continually drawing a glowing blue line to my position meand by the third shot, I'm taking some cover at that point. If I out range my opponent (what I always aim to do), he/she normally finds cover by the third or 4th shot anyway. By then I have time to let the mech cool. Very rarely do I maintain a drawn out sustained line of fire. I'd like to, but rarely does the opportunity arise.

Either way, we can argue about this for pages, but how much would it really hurt to give a pilot the option? Even if it is rarely beneficial, it isn't going to create an uber light wrecking machine.

[Joseph Mallan]

El Bandito, on 22 December 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

MWO as a whole is an easy mode point-and-click adventure with pin-point precision, instead of dice rolling. I see nothing wrong with implementing Light Efficiency to help 20-25 ton mechs.

The whole game environment is so far away from the board game, many of the rules should not be adhered to as if they are the Bible.

Then it would not be a BattleTech Game. I am here cause it is a BattleTech Game. It's the same for Star Trek Games and Star Wars games certain things are the way they are because of the universe it is played in. Smugglers don't get to use Light Sabers, the Federation don't get to use Romulan Cloaking in the fleet. It is that way cause there is a canon to stay in touch with.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 05:59 AM, said:

Do you have a suggestion to make sub-250 engines less crappy in MWO then or are you just resisting change?



That's missing the point, also not something that's particularly fair either because at least with my idea there are consequences for having less heatsinks.



It makes little sense to make an exception only for <30 ton mechs, since as I already demonstrated it's not just an issue for them.



Firing 1 ERLL does not rapidly overheat the mech with 10 DHS, and it wouldn't be a big problem with less heatsinks either.



What I see is a system that gives multiple mechs the shaft if they don't have a 250+ rated engine, and that 30 year old system you're referring to is for Tabletop, which isn't what this game is.

I am resistant to change that is only because players are resistant to challenges. It is a long standing mechanic that is part and parcel to the universe the game is from. Work with it, work around it, it is a limitation that is there to challenge the players. I have been (re)designing Light Mechs for 30 years using those limits so have many other Mechwarriors. You telling me you can't do what old players have been doing on TT and in previous MechWarrior titles for all these years?

[Mercules]

El Bandito, on 22 December 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

The whole game environment is so far away from the board game, many of the rules should not be adhered to as if they are the Bible.

You say "many" and others of us say, "as few as possible".

[MeiSooHaityu]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 06:04 AM, said:

Then it would not be a BattleTech Game. I am here cause it is a BattleTech Game. It's the same for Star Trek Games and Star Wars games certain things are the way they are because of the universe it is played in. Smugglers don't get to use Light Sabers, the Federation don't get to use Romulan Cloaking in the fleet. It is that way cause there is a canon to stay in touch with.

The U.S.S Defiant NCC-75633 . Has a cloaking device based off of Romulan technology.

Actually, there is whole videos on Youtube about repeated contradictions within the cannon. I still like Star Trek anyway though, I wouldn't stop watching.

Really though, I get what your saying. Still, I wouldn't think this small rule exception would destroy MWO's Battletech influence. Heck, if anything, the quirk system in and of itself is probably the biggest offender of that, and your still here .

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 22 December 2014 - 06:23 AM.

[El Bandito]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 06:04 AM, said:

Then it would not be a BattleTech Game. I am here cause it is a BattleTech Game. It's the same for Star Trek Games and Star Wars games certain things are the way they are because of the universe it is played in. Smugglers don't get to use Light Sabers, the Federation don't get to use Romulan Cloaking in the fleet. It is that way cause there is a canon to stay in touch with.

And just like the lore, IS mechs and Clan mechs are in separate queue in CW and we are fighting according to faction lines. There are plenty of lore PGI can adhere to in order to make it a BT game, such as mech fidelity, faction fidelity, etc etc--in fact, MWO is more faithful to BT than other MW series so far. However, there are many things that are holding balance back--like the TT rules that is meant for a board game which does not translate well into FPS game. I am just gonna call you old-fashioned.

There are worse offenders such as 3PV and Ghost Heat in game and I don't see you stop playing MWO. Bet you $100 bucks that you will still be here if PGI makes 10 HS requirement not mandatory for small engines.

Edited by El Bandito, 22 December 2014 - 06:28 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mercules, on 22 December 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

You say "many" and others of us say, "as few as possible".

I play this game cause it is A BattleTech Game... even before the forum banners proclaimed it so. I give it money cause it is a BattleTech Game. I would be quite put out if I did not feel it was a BattleTech Game. Much as I was put out by MW:DA. I didn't like the silly rules of that game and only made enough of an investment to determine the game was not for me.

[Joseph Mallan]

MeiSooHaityu, on 22 December 2014 - 06:19 AM, said:

The U.S.S Defiant NCC-1764 . Has a cloaking device based off of Romulan technology.

Actually, there is whole videos on Youtube about repeated contradictions within the cannon. I still like Star Trek anyway though, I wouldn't stop watching.

Really though, I get what your saying. Still, I wouldn't think this small rule exception would destroy MWO's Battletech influence. Heck, if anything, the quirk system in and of itself is probably the biggest offender of that, and your still here .

How many of that ship does the Federation have? One If I remember Correctly.

This is not a "small" rule exception. It is a huge change in the game mechanics that only the newest of noobs need to use on TT.

Plenty of Mech on TT had quirks written in the fluff. The Enforcer had a feed problem that jammed the AC for instance. Capellan build Marauders had to have a custom trigger cause it had to many different weapons for the Computer to handle. All quirks that a GM could include at his/her discretion. There are Medium laser models that have greater range, damage potential as well. So it is not as alien to the universe as you think it is.

[Mercules]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 05:59 AM, said:

Firing 1 ERLL does not rapidly overheat the mech with 10 DHS, and it wouldn't be a big problem with less heatsinks either.

That 1 ERLL fires almost twice as fast as normal with the cooldown and duration quirks.

Do you even Locust bro?

MeiSooHaityu, on 22 December 2014 - 06:02 AM, said:

Yes, it does not take fire rate into consideration.

I however notice that I generally can't sustain a large string of fire on an opponent. Continually drawing a glowing blue line to my position meand by the third shot, I'm taking some cover at that point. If I out range my opponent (what I always aim to do), he/she normally finds cover by the third or 4th shot anyway. By then I have time to let the mech cool. Very rarely do I maintain a drawn out sustained line of fire. I'd like to, but rarely does the opportunity arise.

Either way, we can argue about this for pages, but how much would it really hurt to give a pilot the option? Even if it is rarely beneficial, it isn't going to create an uber light wrecking machine.

On the other hand I quite often catch 2-3 mechs out in the open from the angles I can reach in a Locust. In the PuG que I can often shoot one multiple times before it reacts and often that is to move to cover and then lay fire upon a second one. Very often I find myself thinking, "One more shot would have taken that torso." but my heat was too high. A lot of people now skimp on back armor and don't react until their LT/RT turn red. They often look around a bit and if you duck right you can make them miss seeing you and have that next shot, but not if your heat warning is beeping at you.


Yes the Locust is definitely fast enough to break off and cool down against anything but another Light. However I still don't believe you would want to reduce below 10 HS.


Something neither of you are taking into consideration is that HS determine not only how fast you cool off, but your threshold before you overheat. 1/10th of your DHS is a significant drop in threshold when combined with cooling slower.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

How many of that ship does the Federation have? One If I remember Correctly.

Its an exception

We can pick a bigger one.

Since ST:TNG ships can not exceed warp factor 10. It is a physics impossibility. Tom Paris exceeds it in ST:V when trying to find a way home. They explain anything over warp 10 as infinite velocity (being instantly everywhere in the universe at once). Lastly, the Star Trek original series and movies ignore the Warp 10 rule all together.

Warp travel is a staple of the universe and they alter it as they feel to suite their situation as they feel.

Any who, something like the 10 base heatsink rule doesn't seem like a cannon-destroying exception if done just for small lights.

Who knows, maybe it is. Maybe we would be better off to leave the base heatsink rule alone. Either way, I Do like seeing you get bent out of shape over it though .

[Joseph Mallan]

MeiSooHaityu, on 22 December 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

Its an exception

We can pick a bigger one.

Since ST:TNG ships can not exceed warp factor 10. It is a physics impossibility. Tom Paris exceeds it in ST:V when trying to find a way home. They explain anything over warp 10 as infinite velocity (being instantly everywhere in the universe at once). Lastly, the Star Trek original series and movies ignore the Warp 10 rule all together.

Warp travel is a staple of the universe and they alter it as they feel to suite their situation as they feel.

Any who, something like the 10 base heatsink rule doesn't seem like a cannon-destroying exception if done just for small lights.

Who knows, maybe it is. Maybe we would be better off to leave the base heatsink rule alone. Either way, I Do like seeing you get bent out of shape over it though .

So the game's mechanics can deviate from the Canon, and the mechanics of the game say ya gotta have 10.

Also, I'm rigid in my thinking, being bent out of shape does not happen.
Adamant does not necessarily dictate anger.

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 06:04 AM, said:

Then it would not be a BattleTech Game. I am here cause it is a BattleTech Game. It's the same for Star Trek Games and Star Wars games certain things are the way they are because of the universe it is played in. Smugglers don't get to use Light Sabers, the Federation don't get to use Romulan Cloaking in the fleet. It is that way cause there is a canon to stay in touch with.

The game doesn't stop being Battletech because of changing a few rules, which is evident by many of the rules already being changed extensively for MWO and yet it's still considered Battletech.

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 06:09 AM, said:

I am resistant to change that is only because players are resistant to challenges. It is a long standing mechanic that is part and parcel to the universe the game is from. Work with it, work around it, it is a limitation that is there to challenge the players. I have been (re)designing Light Mechs for 30 years using those limits so have many other Mechwarriors. You telling me you can't do what old players have been doing on TT and in previous MechWarrior titles for all these years?

I don't care about how things worked in previous Mechwarrior titles or in Tabletop because if it doesn't work as well in MWO (due to various rule changes and such) then there's room for improvement.

What I'm basically suggesting is to give players more options on how to build their mech, but those added options still have consequences, so no it's not about resisting challenge but rather about resisting a lame rule system that puts certain mechs at a lame disadvantage for no real reason other than "it worked fine in this other related game that has very different rules."

I actually would even go so far as to suggest being able to have only 1 heatsink if for some reason you wanted that, although considering the effect that movement has on heat dissipation I can't really imagine how that would make for an effective build unless you had some crazy gauss build or boated a ridiculous number of machine guns.

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

This is not a "small" rule exception. It is a huge change in the game mechanics that only the newest of noobs need to use on TT.

The only thing that's huge is how much you're exaggerating there, and yet again you bring up Tabletop when it barely even matters in this case because the rules are so much different.

The idea is not something that has no consequences, obviously you're going to have less heat dissipation and less heat threshold if you could have less than 10 heatsinks, so it's not something to just shrug off, but at the same time could prove to be worthwhile for some builds if you chose to play that way. It's not just an option for "noobs" just because it may or may not have been that way in Tabletop, which you seem to do an excellent job of flagrantly ignoring.

Edited by Pjwned, 22 December 2014 - 06:48 AM.

[Mercules]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 06:44 AM, said:

The idea is not something that has no consequences, obviously you're going to have less heat dissipation and less heat threshold if you could have less than 10 heatsinks, so it's not something to just shrug off, but at the same time could prove to be worthwhile for some builds if you chose to play that way.

The mechs it would most likely effect are Light Mechs. Light Mechs do not have enough left over tonnage in MWO to take things like Gauss Rifles, multiple AC/5s, or other low heat options. Their main armament is energy based. Energy based weapons are low weight and high heat meaning the weight you save on weapons is typically spent on heatsinks so you can fire the weapons.

So even if you could go less than 10 HS I don't think many would because you would be cutting your available firepower by a good deal. Ergo, there is no reason to make the change. The benefit of doing it would be so slight as to not make it worthwhile.


Trust me, I've played Commandos since closed beta and I have considered it since the first time I went, "Oh right I need to add some HS outside the engine."

[Pjwned]

Mercules, on 22 December 2014 - 06:30 AM, said:

On the other hand I quite often catch 2-3 mechs out in the open from the angles I can reach in a Locust. In the PuG que I can often shoot one multiple times before it reacts and often that is to move to cover and then lay fire upon a second one. Very often I find myself thinking, "One more shot would have taken that torso." but my heat was too high. A lot of people now skimp on back armor and don't react until their LT/RT turn red. They often look around a bit and if you duck right you can make them miss seeing you and have that next shot, but not if your heat warning is beeping at you.


Yes the Locust is definitely fast enough to break off and cool down against anything but another Light. However I still don't believe you would want to reduce below 10 HS.


Something neither of you are taking into consideration is that HS determine not only how fast you cool off, but your threshold before you overheat. 1/10th of your DHS is a significant drop in threshold when combined with cooling slower.

Let's say that is true then, which I still don't entirely agree with because I think MeiSoo is more right, but regardless...

It's still just an option, there would be nothing stopping you from loading in as many heatsinks as you feel comfortable with, meanwhile if somebody else wants to ride more dangerously by having less heatsinks then they could do that too.

Mercules, on 22 December 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

The mechs it would most likely effect are Light Mechs. Light Mechs do not have enough left over tonnage in MWO to take things like Gauss Rifles, multiple AC/5s, or other low heat options. Their main armament is energy based. Energy based weapons are low weight and high heat meaning the weight you save on weapons is typically spent on heatsinks so you can fire the weapons.

So even if you could go less than 10 HS I don't think many would because you would be cutting your available firepower by a good deal. Ergo, there is no reason to make the change. The benefit of doing it would be so slight as to not make it worthwhile.


Trust me, I've played Commandos since closed beta and I have considered it since the first time I went, "Oh right I need to add some HS outside the engine."

There are also missiles and machine guns you know, but it's funny that you bring up high heat for energy weapons because Inner Sphere small & medium lasers both have more heat than they should.

Edited by Pjwned, 22 December 2014 - 06:55 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 06:44 AM, said:

The game doesn't stop being Battletech because of changing a few rules, which is evident by many of the rules already being changed extensively for MWO and yet it's still considered Battletech.



I don't care about how things worked in previous Mechwarrior titles or in Tabletop because if it doesn't work as well in MWO (due to various rule changes and such) then there's room for improvement.

What I'm basically suggesting is to give players more options on how to build their mech, but those added options still have consequences, so no it's not about resisting challenge but rather about resisting a lame rule system that puts certain mechs at a lame disadvantage for no real reason other than "it worked fine in this other related game that has very different rules."

I actually would even go so far as to suggest being able to have only 1 heatsink if for some reason you wanted that, although considering the effect that movement has on heat dissipation I can't really imagine how that would make for an effective build unless you had some crazy gauss build or boated a ridiculous number of machine guns.



The only thing that's huge is how much you're exaggerating there, and yet again you bring up Tabletop when it barely even matters in this case because the rules are so much different.

The idea is not something that has no consequences, obviously you're going to have less heat dissipation and less heat threshold if you could have less than 10 heatsinks, so it's not something to just shrug off, but at the same time could prove to be worthwhile for some builds if you chose to play that way.

All this says is, "I don't like the rule and want it changed to suit my taste." I can understand that, I hate this Heat system to its core, but I learned to work within it.

Less heat sinks would allow Lights to ignore the trade off for their lack of tonnage, You MUST have 10 sinks so where do you take the mass from? Less weapons? Less Armor? Less speed? THAT is the reason for base 10 sinks. Only bring 6 sinks... Thats 4 tons for more other equipment the vehicle was not meant to have without real sacrifices.

[Mercules]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 06:53 AM, said:

Let's say that is true then, which I still don't entirely agree with because I think MeiSoo is more right, but regardless...

It's still just an option, there would be nothing stopping you from loading in as many heatsinks as you feel comfortable with, meanwhile if somebody else wants to ride more dangerously by having less heatsinks then they could do that too.

Because it would be a worthless change. Why because people would "live dangerously" and then realize they really should have as many HS as they can tack onto that chassis.
1. It's a rule just like so many others that add flavor to the BT universe
2. Changing it would result in little to no benefit

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 06:53 AM, said:

There are also missiles and machine guns you know, but it's funny that you bring up high heat for energy weapons because Inner Sphere small & medium lasers both have more heat than they should.

Machine Guns are next to worthless against armor especially for something that has to be hit and run like a light. They are an excellent addition because they don't create heat and most lights run the heatline already. Missiles are viable but create more heat than you realize.

Seriously, "Do you even Light bro?"