74 replies to this topic

[Ari Dian]

Alex Warden, on 16 October 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

biggest problem with the locust: due to minimum 4 additionally needed HS it´s 4 tons short of weapons, so it has basically no guns

BUT, and that a HUGE but, it IS a 20 ton mech, designed for anti-infantry purposes... so i´m not surprised

Not really. The engine weight 4 tons less because of this. It was more or less a Mech build problem with the UI. It was really easier to make it this way.
MWO: Standard 160 (with 6 HS): 7 t
BT: Standard 160 (with 10 HS): 6 t + Gyro: 2 t + Cockpit: 3 t = 11 t.
You dont have to "waste" 4 tons for Heatsinks. You just have to assign the missing 4 heatsinks manually.

Sure, PGI could lift the strickt build restrictions from Battletech and remove the minimum 10 heatsinks rule. It was the way in closed beta and it was not this broken (i know only two mechs who were abusing the less than 10 HS free weight (Commando and K2).

[Kmieciu]

Ari Dian, on 16 October 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

Sure, PGI could lift the strickt build restrictions from Battletech and remove the minimum 10 heatsinks rule. It was the way in closed beta and it was not this broken (i know only two mechs who were abusing the less than 10 HS free weight (Commando and K2).

Yeah, sure - you can remove the 10 HS rule. But if you do, the STD160 engine should weigh 11 tonns so the only difference would be that you have 4 HS less, for the same weight.

I remember from closed beta that if you dropped in a Commando with 6 SHS and overheat inside the caldera, you would shut down and explode.

Edited by Kmieciu, 17 October 2013 - 02:36 AM.

[Samophlange]

I had one heat sink blown out and my Locust wouldn't come out of overheat. Even though I didn't have any heat built up. The minimum heat sink requirement for such a small mech makes no sense at all.
Running with a 1.7+ heat efficiency but then getting locked out due to the loss of an unnecessary heat sink seems like a major issue.

[Kmieciu]

Samophlange, on 17 October 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

I had one heat sink blown out and my Locust wouldn't come out of overheat. Even though I didn't have any heat built up.

You just contradicted yourself. You lost some heat sinks and the mech would not come out of overheat. That means that if the HS limit was not in place, you could build a mech that would have insufficient cooling from the start of the match! On a hot map you would simply overheat and die without firing a laser! It would be unplayable!

PS. The Heat Efficiency stat in mechlab is misleading.

Edited by Kmieciu, 17 October 2013 - 03:25 AM.

[Ari Dian]

Kmieciu, on 17 October 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

Yeah, sure - you can remove the 10 HS rule. But if you do, the STD160 engine should weigh 11 tonns so the only difference would be that you have 4 HS less, for the same weight.

I remember from closed beta that if you dropped in a Commando with 6 SHS and overheat inside the caldera, you would shut down and explode.

i had a K2 and a Commando In closed beta that had less than the 10 HS. 9 on both.
K2 with dual gauss could not overheat. So you could use the extra ton you didnt have to waste for a HS for more ammo.
The Commando was doing fine with 9 DHS as well. A 10th HS would not be possible because the mech ran out of crit rows.


And why would a STD160 engine weight 11 tons? It is 7 tons with 6 HS. And remain the same if they remove the 10 heatsink rule. So you are free to add only 3 heatsinks to the mech if you want and save one ton for something else.
Again, i am not for lifting the rule, its fine for me. But it was already in the game and it would be easy to change it back to this way if they really wanted.

Edited by Ari Dian, 17 October 2013 - 04:55 AM.

[Kmieciu]

Ari Dian, on 17 October 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

And why would a STD160 engine weight 11 tons? It is 7 tons with 6 HS.

So the 160 engine itself weighs (7 tonnes - Gyro - Cocpit) = 2 tonnes ? How about a 145 engine? Should it be weightless?

Admit you just want those 4 extra free tonnes for your Locust :-)

[Rift Hawk]

Samophlange, on 17 October 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

I had one heat sink blown out and my Locust wouldn't come out of overheat. Even though I didn't have any heat built up. The minimum heat sink requirement for such a small mech makes no sense at all.
Running with a 1.7+ heat efficiency but then getting locked out due to the loss of an unnecessary heat sink seems like a major issue.

The problem is that PGI doesn't have different variations of engines. An XL 170 is an XL 170 is an XL 170. There were many different manufacturers of engines in lore. I'm not going to go look up stats on them but I'm sure they aren't all the same.

[Ari Dian]

Kmieciu, on 17 October 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

So the 160 engine itself weighs (7 tonnes - Gyro - Cocpit) = 2 tonnes ? How about a 145 engine? Should it be weightless?

Admit you just want those 4 extra free tonnes for your Locust :-)

Again. I am not up for removing the 10 HS limit. Mainly because i am a BT-TT Junkie.

And the 160 Engine weight 6 tons. With 10 Heatsinks.
A 120 Engine (To get one that would weight less) weight 4 tons in the TT. it has 10 heat sinks (4 in the engine). Add the Gyro and Cockpit and you get the MWO weight of 3t (+6t for the heatsinks).
In the TT its: 4 for the engine, 2 for the gyro, 3 for the cockpit. Same 9t.


PGI had to add the Gyro and Cockpit weight to the engine BECAUSE of the lower heatsinks in the engine. In closed beta the Cockpit was seperate, and they got some problems with the engine weights in the lower end because of this. They were to heavy.

The whole problem comes from the way the UI handle the mechbuild. Normaly, if you would place an engine of less than 250 on a mech, there would be some area with "to place equipment". And in this area would be the spare heatsinks that dont fit in the engine, but belong to it.

I like the way PGI did it with the lower engines. Its easy and working. And you dont have to bother with the gyro and cockpit. It is just a bit strange for non TT player to understand why the engines make so strange weight jumps (200 to 205, 300 to 305).

Now you could say they should just ignore the build rules for mechs, and change these. But no matter what. MWO is based on the TT, and the build rules and weights of the equpment in one of the only parts they cant really change without messing up a lot of other stuff and would cause more problems as it would solve.
The one part they "could" drop would be the 10 HS min rule. But imo this is not really worth it. Because there are to few mechs who would work with less than 10 HS.

So in my opinion they should keep it like it is. There are other problems in the game that are more important.

[Kmieciu]

If they dropped the 10 HS rule it would beneficial not only for the mechs that cannot mount a 250-rated engine. Mechs that can mount the low - rated engines would get up to 6 "free" tonnes, leading to "turret" builds, like the 2xGauss 2xPPC Catapult.

Edited by Kmieciu, 18 October 2013 - 12:38 AM.

[Tolkien]

Cardos, on 15 October 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

u guys are complainingh that the lightest mech didnt have an advantage over all others? seriously?

let me point one out for u.....it is not just the lightest mech.....its also the cheapest one and it really is devastating in swarms...

I would say that the complaint is the lightest mech does not have the one advantage it *should* have. Speed.

Compare this thing to a spider or a raven 3L. It is the same weight ratio as a kintaro fighting an atlas. The kintaro can try to outmanoeuvre, flank, or run away from his heavier opponent but the locust has no such option. No ECM to hide, no speed to escape.

Capping the engine at 160 also cripples the loadouts it can take. Most light mechs can take endosteel and ferro fibrous since they do not have large weapons. The locust has to put multiple double heatsinks outside the engine to be a valid build so it doesn't actually have the space to use the weight saving tech that the other light mechs can.

So the factors conspiring against this mech are>
1) Engine cap
2) Engine cap
3) Lack of ECM or jumpjets
4) Engine cap

[Ari Dian]

Kmieciu, on 18 October 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

If they dropped the 10 HS rule it would beneficial not only for the mechs that cannot mount a 250-rated engine. Mechs that can mount the low - rated engines would get up to 6 "free" tonnes, leading to "turret" builds, like the 2xGauss 2xPPC Catapult.

2 PPC with 4 DHS means perma shutdown. Not only this. the heat treshold would be far lower cause an even earlier shutdown.
You just cool by 8 heat per 10 sec this way. Not to mention the natural heat on hot maps. So you can fire the PPCs maybe twice. After this you are out of the match.
You could not even fire the two Gauss without shutting down.
So go for it, use the mech. Build your turret .


No, a remove of the limit would not cause total overpowered mechs. And it would only help a few builds that dont have hot weapons. But they are slow as well because of the low engine.
Mainly dual Gauss or light mechs without lasers.
But because of this, because it would only affect so few mechs, i does not harm to keep the rules as they are.

[Ari Dian]

Tolkien, on 18 October 2013 - 01:01 AM, said:

I would say that the complaint is the lightest mech does not have the one advantage it *should* have. Speed.

Compare this thing to a spider or a raven 3L. It is the same weight ratio as a kintaro fighting an atlas. The kintaro can try to outmanoeuvre, flank, or run away from his heavier opponent but the locust has no such option. No ECM to hide, no speed to escape.

Capping the engine at 160 also cripples the loadouts it can take. Most light mechs can take endosteel and ferro fibrous since they do not have large weapons. The locust has to put multiple double heatsinks outside the engine to be a valid build so it doesn't actually have the space to use the weight saving tech that the other light mechs can.

So the factors conspiring against this mech are>
1) Engine cap
2) Engine cap
3) Lack of ECM or jumpjets
4) Engine cap

All below with: max engine, max armor, ES, FF, DHS.

Locust: 8 free slots and 6.15 free tons (6.5 if you drop a bit armor).

Commando (all but 2D): 10 free slots and 6.53 free tons (7 if you drop a bit armor).
COM-2D (the ECM one): 7 free slots and 8.03 free tons.
Spider (all but 5D): 13 free slots and 8.14 free tons.
Spider 5D (the ECM one): 13 free slots and 10.14 free tons.


First: you forgot that the Locust has 4 more slots as the Commando or Spider (less activators in the arms)
Second: How many free slots do you need for 6.5t of loadout?
Third: Fero Armor on a Locust will give you 0,46t. Not even half a ton for 14 crit slots. You will have to lower your armor even further to make some use of the FF.
Forth: yes, the Engine cap is a problem. And really remove the big bonus of a 20t mech. You could easy get a Locust to 250 kph. No way to do this with a Spider. The question remains how usefull this is .

The only one where this matter might be the LCT-3M. With 5 small lasers. And even on this one you can just remove the FF to get the free slots.


Edit: Format of the mechs with free slots and weight.

Edited by Ari Dian, 18 October 2013 - 02:59 AM.

[Tolkien]

Ari Dian, on 18 October 2013 - 01:50 AM, said:

A Locust, with max engine, max armor, ES, FF, DHS (3), has 8 free slots and 6.15 free tons (6.5 if you drop a bit armor).

A Commando (all but 2D) with max engine, max armor, ES, FF; DHS (1), has 10 free slots and 6.53 free tons (7 if you drop a bit armor).
A COM-2D (the ECM one) has only 7 free slots because of the small max engine.And has 8.03 free tons.
Spider (all but 5D) has 13 free slots and 8.14 free tons.
Spider 5D: has 13 free slots and 10,14 free tons.


First: you forgot that the Locust has 4 more slots as the Commando or Spider (less activators in the arms)
Second: How many free slots do you need for 6.5t of loadout?
Third: Fero Armor on a Locust will give you 0,46t. Not even half a ton for 14 crit slots. You will have to lower your armor even further to make some use of the FF.
Forth: yes, the Engine cap is a problem. And really remove the big bonus of a 20t mech. You could easy get a Locust to 250 kph. No way to do this with a Spider. The question remains how usefull this is .

The only one where this matter might be the LCT-3M. With 5 small lasers. And even on this one you can just remove the FF to get the free slots.

I think you just answered your own question about the trade off.

With the engine cap the locust has 25% less armour than a commando at the same speed and same approximate payload, and no ECM option. Does its silhouette make up for the less armour? I am not sure yet, but so far I'm leaning towards no since guided missiles still find their mark and compared to other mechs like the spider they can't jump around. Dual AMS is a nod to this fact, but it uses ~ 1/3 of the weapons payload and can be defeated by firing multiple SSRM's or an LRM15+.

Without the engine cap it could move 25% faster (XL200=187 with speed tweak) with 25% less armour, and have a comparable loadout to the commando mentioned.

Bottom line the locust gives the user an armour downgrade for a smaller silhouette on a less flexible chassis (JJ's, ECM not available). I think it will have a tough time until the engine cap is raised since I don't find the downsides balanced by that smaller profile.

[Ari Dian]

Tolkien, on 18 October 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

I think you just answered your own question about the trade off.

With the engine cap the locust has 25% less armour than a commando at the same speed and same approximate payload, and no ECM option. Does its silhouette make up for the less armour? I am not sure yet, but so far I'm leaning towards no since guided missiles still find their mark and compared to other mechs like the spider they can't jump around. Dual AMS is a nod to this fact, but it uses ~ 1/3 of the weapons payload and can be defeated by firing multiple SSRM's or an LRM15+.

Without the engine cap it could move 25% faster (XL200=187 with speed tweak) with 25% less armour, and have a comparable loadout to the commando mentioned.

Bottom line the locust gives the user an armour downgrade for a smaller silhouette on a less flexible chassis (JJ's, ECM not available). I think it will have a tough time until the engine cap is raised since I don't find the downsides balanced by that smaller profile.

Same count for all mechs on all weights. A heavier mech has more free weight. At least untill you come to the treshold when the engines become to heavy. For heavier mechs this is not not such a big problem. Because the engines become exponential heavier.

Only for the lighest mechs (20, 25, 30) you will come into the problem. But the relative weight increase on these is way more compared to heaviers mechs. From 20 to 30 it is 50%, from 90 to 100 it is only 11.1%. And the internal and armor raise on the same level. The spider has straight 50% more armor compared to the locust. While an Atlas has only 11% more compared to a Highlander.

[RussianWolf]

I agree with the first part of the OP.

The 2x XP bonus would be nice for the grind on this chassis. Most matches you are doing good to get 300xp and that's WITH Premium time. Occasionally I have a good match and if its first of the day 2000xp is possible, but those are few and far between.

I did finally get anchor turn on the first one last night. The other two should get it tonight.