Tesunie, on 02 May 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:
Who said that engine was that slow? Its only two notches under the max size a Stalker 3F can take. Not to mention, I find that with the combo of LRMs and med lasers, I don't need to move fast.
Why does everyone presume that my mech is worse than it is as soon as they hear SHS? Seriously, a mech can still be effective even if it isn't "optimized".
I just want to point out the transition in your arguments over time.
You start by basically asserting that certain things work for certain people. On its face, this is undeniably true, but the subtle underlying argument is that there are some items/builds which, when matched with the appropriate skillset/playstyle, provide some kind of synergy that makes them better *for that person.*
You provide examples of a slow light mech, and single heat sink Stalker.
You then transition to saying that you’ve “done the math” and that the differences are negligible.
You mention that “
A Jagermech with dual AC20 can be just as effective as one with dual gauss, or 4 AC5s, or 2 AC2s and 2 UAC5s. It's all in how it's played and what you want it to do.”
And finally
“A Jagermech with dual AC20 can be just as effective as one with dual gauss, or 4 AC5s, or 2 AC2s and 2 UAC5s. It's all in how it's played and what you want it to do.”
Now, this is classic.
Making vague statements about “preferences” is fine, if a bit hard to really pin down. Some people might prefer their mechs to perform worse, that’s true.
But it’s where you are basically asserting that “all choices are equally effective in the right hands (paraphrasing but the idea is there) that you start to really go astray.
It’s simply. Not. True.
A slow light might be “effective” i.e. it can “do something,” but it will always be less effective than a heavier mech which can carry more armor and more weapons while achieving the same speed. This is not a matter of preference; this is simply an objective fact.
Likewise, your Stalker might be “effective” in terms of being able to accomplish things, but it will always be more effective with DHS. It’s simply a fact.
You say you have 30 heat sinks.
Well, let’s call it 29 heat sinks, with nearly maxed armor except the legs, 5 medium lasers, 2 LRM 10s and 2 tons of ammo. This sounds pretty close to your build, but I might be off by a bit. It’s irrelevant. Smurfy lists your cooling efficiency at 40%.
Moving to double heat sinks, your engine heat sinks immediately replace 20 of your 29 original heat sinks.
In order to replace the other 9, you must purchase and install 7 more (that gives you a bit more efficiency, actually).
You now have 12 tons of additional weight available.
12 TONS.
Now, you could do all kinds of things with that weight. You could add weapons or upsize them, using some of the additional tonnage for more heat sinks. You have plenty of room. You could go for a bigger engine (though not that much bigger than the 300 I already have in there). You could go “INFINITE AMMO UNLOCKED” mode on your LRMs and spam them to your heart’s content.
Lots of things. But the point is, for the exact same performance, you get a huge amount of extra tonnage to work with. And crit slots are simply not an issue for this build. And at this precise cooling performance, you are only using TWO more crit slots than with the singles.
The issue is that you just don’t like that it’s simply “better.” You eventually start discussing that this is a “remnant” mech from “back in the day” that you just basically can’t be arsed to change.
Finally, you make the classic fluff appeal in a last, desperate attempt at justification.
The reality is, you don’t need to justify anything.
If you like to see steam rising from your legs when standing in water (that’s been implemented, right…? It’s been a while since I’ve driven a SHS mech…), or if the sight of bulky doubles in your mechlab crit layout visually offends you, of if you simply don’t want to be like everyone else, then that’s “valid.” But it isn’t “just as effective”… it’s not. The danger comes when you try to propagate the idea that they are all “equally effective” choices.
Even your c-bill argument is simply rationally lacking. Having 12 extra tons to play with will simply make your mech better, making your income go up with that mech. We see 15% of our tonnage made available but in reality you will see more than a 15% increase in your effectiveness, because the last 25% of your tons are simply more meaningfully spent than the first 75%.
If you have an aesthetic and emotional attachment to single heat sinks and being unique, just say that.
But this thread is fundamentally about balance, and the injection of those kinds of appeals to emotion camouflaged in pseudo-logic and 3
rd grade “everyone’s entitled to their opinion” stuff is just not going to pass the sniff test.
You are suffering from cognitive dissonance, trying to rationally justify an irrational decision. Just embrace the irrationality, admit that it’s an emotional choice and move on.
It should be noted, that if this is a “flaw” it is fundamentally a flaw in design. XL engines, which you also note are prolific, are NOT “simply better” than standard engines and in some cases are much worse. This is because there are genuine trade-offs in survivability and crit-space which make that decision much more situational, much closer to your above explanation of “the right choice for the right situation.”
So if you are irritated that DHS are not balanced, then just say that, but don’t argue that, in some weird way they actually are.
Edited by Purgatus233, 02 May 2013 - 01:50 PM.
6
This topic is locked
