49 replies to this topic

[sC4r]

if there is a requirement for loadouts for this mech i would say its an ability to load ammo by 0.25 tons or something like that

[Bad Andy]

there is no problem, you bought a 20 ton mech you shouldn't expect to be able to fit much into it

[Gauvan]

Kraven Kor, on 15 October 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

You are not really "burning tons" on heat sinks.

Engines under 250 rating require at least one heatsink out of the engine; the engine weights are discounted by how many sinks they would need, so really, you are only losing crit spaces, not tonnage.

I'm glad you pointed this out. I noticed recently in TT that meeting the 10 heat sink minimum only costs critical slots, not tonnage, for the smaller engines. I thought this was something MWO had not carried over--happy to see they included it, just in a different way. Thanks.

[Xendojo]

I am of the opinion that once we start to see locusts with speed tweek, peoples thoughts about the mech and how to build it, will shift.

[TheCrazySteve]

Almost all of the bad builds I see out there are people who believe that just because you have a hard point that it must be filled.

Hell I'm running a locust right now with 3mg, 1ml, and a STANDARD 190. It's a horrible build, but the point is if I can find the room to fit a standard engine with the minimum heat sink requirement any xl build should have plenty of firepower.

In fact I was just fighting (aka fleeing from) a locust running 4ssrm2, granted he probably shorted something to do that, but if you want firepower it is possible.

[Xendojo]

TheCrazySteve, on 16 October 2013 - 06:47 AM, said:

Almost all of the bad builds I see out there are people who believe that just because you have a hard point that it must be filled.

Hell I'm running a locust right now with 3mg, 1ml, and a STANDARD 190. It's a horrible build, but the point is if I can find the room to fit a standard engine with the minimum heat sink requirement any xl build should have plenty of firepower.

In fact I was just fighting (aka fleeing from) a locust running 4ssrm2, granted he probably shorted something to do that, but if you want firepower it is possible.

Putting an XL170 on the LCT-3S frees up exactly 3 tons, just enough to fit 4xSSRM2 with 1 ton of ammo and a medium laser. Shorts you nothing, you get more speed and firepower over the stock config. But it does run very hot. Two alphas then run away to cool off.

EDIT: I'm considering dropping CASE and switching to one small laser, just to add another ton of SSRM ammo. But still you don't lose anything except a little range. And lets face it, losing that does not hurt at all.

Edited by Xendojo, 16 October 2013 - 06:55 AM.

[Bad Andy]

the real problem is that people only think about how much firepower they can fit right now since the game only rewards you mostly for fighting. If there were better rewards for scouting and capping points (esp in conquest) you wouldn't need to be as worried about firepower.

Edited by Bad Andy, 16 October 2013 - 07:08 AM.

[Aggressor666]

played 8 rounds in my 1V and am sitting on a 2.0 KD 1 med laser and 4 MG's, XL 190, 153.9 kph
stick with a group of lights whenever you can or play backup with heavys most players will ignore you to shoot at slower (easier to hit) heavys swing in behind and tear up the back armor, you'd be shocked how fast you can core a mech that's distracted

[Corvus Antaka]

Troggy, on 15 October 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

Actually. Virtually all the XLs weight the same amount 4.0 tonnes, and you only save 0.5 tonnes by dropping from the 175 (at 5.5 tonnes) b/c you get the other heat sink. Same at 145 (at 2.5 tonnes). Which means every engine smaller than the 180 is pretty much identical.

The problem isn't "compromises," the problem is physical impossibility at any speed. There needs to be a system re-work (e.g. 8 HS minimum or small engines come with more heat sinks) to allow for any sort of variety in Locust builds.

this

[Burning Chrome]

Light mech munchkin QQ
Wite Knite herp derp
Pansies bloom where tears fall

Edited by Burning Chrome, 16 October 2013 - 10:59 AM.

[Koniving]

Troggy, on 15 October 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

Actually. Virtually all the XLs weight the same amount 4.0 tonnes, and you only save 0.5 tonnes by dropping from the 175 (at 5.5 tonnes) b/c you get the other heat sink. Same at 145 (at 2.5 tonnes). Which means every engine smaller than the 180 is pretty much identical.

The problem isn't "compromises," the problem is physical impossibility at any speed. There needs to be a system re-work (e.g. 8 HS minimum or small engines come with more heat sinks) to allow for any sort of variety in Locust builds.

Actually they mentioned something about changing the XL engine weights in the lower rangers so that fewer to none weigh identically the same. But this hasn't occurred yet.

When it does I feel we'll see much more variety in possibilities. However sporting heavy ACs or LRM-20s still won't be a realistic option.

[Zyllos]

Troggy, on 15 October 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

Actually. Virtually all the XLs weight the same amount 4.0 tonnes, and you only save 0.5 tonnes by dropping from the 175 (at 5.5 tonnes) b/c you get the other heat sink. Same at 145 (at 2.5 tonnes). Which means every engine smaller than the 180 is pretty much identical.

The problem isn't "compromises," the problem is physical impossibility at any speed. There needs to be a system re-work (e.g. 8 HS minimum or small engines come with more heat sinks) to allow for any sort of variety in Locust builds.

This is mostly true.

Most XL engines below the 200 rating are basically the same. This is because normally, mechs can not use engine ratings that are not wholly divisible by the mech tonnage. But in MWO, you are allowed to equip anything inbetween, thus many engines become useless, thus meaning you should never equip them.

I think almost all STD engines above 125 or so are always useful for every 5 rating increase. But many XL engines at 200 and lower are not.

Koniving, on 16 October 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

Actually they mentioned something about changing the XL engine weights in the lower rangers so that fewer to none weigh identically the same. But this hasn't occurred yet.

When it does I feel we'll see much more variety in possibilities. However sporting heavy ACs or LRM-20s still won't be a realistic option.

They can't "change" these weights unless they completely change how they do engine, gyro, cockpit, and internal/external heatsink weight totals.

And even if they do, they will not be able to make them different unless they are fine with breaking stock mech weights.

• CBT Rules
  
  • Cockpit + Sensors + Lifesupport = 3.0t (regardless of mech)
    
  • Gyro = Engine Rating / 100; round up (100 rating = 1.0t, 105 rating = 2.0t, 195 rating = 2.0t, 200 rating = 2.0t, 205 rating = 3.0t, ect)
    
  • External HS cost no extra weight
• MWO Rules
  
  • Cockpit + Sensors + Lifesupport = 0.0t
    
  • Gyro = 0.0t
    
  • External HS cost weight

Basically, in MWO, the cockpit, sensors, lifesupport, and gyro weight is rolled into engines. Then the engine weight is subtracted from the number of external heatsinks that need to be added, giving the final weight.



Look at a Commando in both CBT and MWO:

• Commando; 25t
  
  • CBT
    
    • Available engines: 100, 125, 150, 175, ect.
  • MWO
    
    • 100, 105, 110, ... , 240.

In CBT, regardless of XL or STD, each increment of engine rating has a new tonnage. 100 STD = 3.0t, 125 STD = 4.0t, ect. 100 XL = 1.5t, 125 XL = 2.0t, ect.



In MWO, you are allowed all the engines. 100 STD = 1.0t, 105 STD = 2.5t, 110 STD = 2.5t, ect. 100 XL = 0.5t, 105 XL = 1.0t, 110 XL = 1.0t.

If you use the above calculations, the engine weights are correct, when you finish equipping the 10 base HS. But you can see that the 100 XL is the incorrect weight, being 1.0t too heavy:

MWO 100 XL = 0.5t + 3.0t (Cockpit, Sensors, and Lifesupport) + 1.0t (Gyro) - 6.0t (external HS) = -1.5t
CBT 100 XL = 1.5t + 3.0t (Cockpit, Sensors, and Lifesupport) + 1.0t (Gyro) = 5.5t

5.5t (CBT weight) - 6.0t (external HS) = -0.5t

As you can see, the CBT weight does not match the MWO weight. And that is because PGI doesn't want an engine to have "negative" weight.

The only way to fix this is to modify how the calculation works, by having the base 10 HS come at no weight and seperate the cockpit, sensor, lifesupport, and gyro weights from the engine.

Once this is done, all the engine weights will match the exact weight in CBT (at least by absolute numbers).

But if you modify the engines that have repeat values, any mechs that come default with that engine will then be over/under weight dependent on how PGI modifies them.

So...I am unsure what they mean by that they are going to modify the engine weights.

Edited by Zyllos, 16 October 2013 - 12:32 PM.

[Kelito]

yashmack, on 15 October 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

10 heatsink requirement is battletech tabletop rules
all engines regardless of size must have at least 10 heatsink to dissipate the heat it generates, any less and your core will overload, simple as that

And we all know that MWO only uses tabletop rules in game right...Give me a break here....

[Kraven Kor]

Kelito, on 16 October 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

And we all know that MWO only uses tabletop rules in game right...Give me a break here....

Well, the mech building / modifying rules are as close to they can get, and purposefuly so. All canon variants and builds can work in MWO without any extra tonnage or other mysterious differences.
Some variants don't work due to the hardpoint system, but the construction rules are, and will be, compatible with TT rules and that is by design.

Thus, good luck getting this changed. And by that I mean "I don't agree with you and do not wish for this to be changed."

[Kiu]

Damn guys, ITS A SCOUT MECH - if you attack a streakcat/mlaser hunch with it front to front - FAIL
The only problem I have is the game-engine-cap (cause of net-sync-problem AFAIK) at around 150/the mech size of scouts (to easy to hit for being "fast small scouts")... but thats another topic.

[Hex Pallett]

Finally someone said it.

[Zeee]

At one match, could be the opposing team had a 4 man coms, Before i realized who was peppering me with srms i died. than i noticed the 2 bug's behind the atlas i was brawling. Bugs blasting srm6 is bad news. Locusts are a hidden power!!

Edited by Zeee, 16 October 2013 - 05:23 PM.

[Koniving]

Zyllos, on 16 October 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

They can't "change" these weights unless they completely change how they do engine, gyro, cockpit, and internal/external heatsink weight totals.

So...I am unsure what they mean by that they are going to modify the engine weights.

They can, because they're PGI. After all if they went by the rules, we'd ~never~ need ghost heat because our thresholds would never rise, we'd never require "1.4" heatsinks, and we'd shut down more frequently than trial mechs when alpha striking, so everyone would be going for damage over time or firing slowly with the high heat weapons.

So I wouldn't expect dirt on rule adherence.

As you know in tabletop, the rule is 30 threshold. MW3, 30 threshold. Mw4, 60, and we know what happened there. Average Minimum DHS threshold is 60 for 10 with a mastered mech. With highs near 90. Clan tech if it functions the same way as Inner Sphere DHS, but with the two slot thing... we'd see thresholds of 126 and more. That's 6 ER PPCs while stationary without even shutting down [without ghost heat].

Even in tabletop, 6 ER PPCs results in shutdown, don't matter what you do, and that's with the fact that tabletop doesn't account for any actual alpha strike. It's always chain fired in standard rules (an alpha strike would consist of a single dice roll for all identical weapons instead of one per weapon). So, tabletop limited to firing once per weapon per 10 seconds, chain firing and giving that full 10 seconds to cool down, they always shut down. But MWO's system without ghost heat would allow the same mech to fire 6 ER PPCs at the same time and not even shut down.

So, again, don't expect PGI to adhere to ~any~ rules as far as that goes.

Edited by Koniving, 16 October 2013 - 07:04 PM.

[Mazgazine1]

I find that that following the table top in general is completely optional. The MWO rules in place just seem to be unfair towards the smaller mechs.

No, I'm not expecting my locust to do top damage.. I'm expecting it to be able to use its hard points even with smaller weapons. If I try to run just 2 SRM4s, is 3 tons of ammo really enough? Why have 4 missile slots then? Is it just a joke?

Maybe I will have to try it out anyways.

I didn't know there was already a weight adjustment to lights, but it really doesn't seem like much of a change? If it was different then why are they the same weight still? Wouldn't the adjustment leave extra tonnage free vs table top "stock"?

I would like to see the locust to be even slightly more viable, even if it means providing the same benefit to other lights.

I think I am just trying to find an advantage for the locust as the original intent was for this mech to be the fastest. but PGI went and ruined that uniqueness.

[Past]

After playing mine last night i really like the locust even the cockpit is cool I’m fine with all the things obstructing some of the view i like the claustrophobic cramped feel it gives off. They are fun but not very competitive though and dropping the minimum heatsink requirement to 9 for both the locust and the flea would be a step in the right direction to providing just a tiny bit of flexibility with such low tonnage.
People against a change like this in the couple of threads that refer to it are against it based on the tabletop canon or state that it’s a scout mech so just scout but I find no matter what you do you eventually end up in a combat situation at some point in a match.
From an in game Mechwarrior Online only perspective would dropping the requirement by just 1 to 9 be overpowered in any way at all for a mech that seems widley considered so far to be a underperforming and a liability?