50 replies to this topic

[WVAnonymous]

Khobai, on 17 October 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

No theyre legitimate complaints. The Locust should not have to have 10 heatsinks. It quite frankly doesnt need that many with 4 machine guns as its main weapons.

Certainly doesn't need 10 DOUBLE heat sinks. Think of the savings. "I'm not gonna pay a lot for that Locust."

[Mehlan]

Quote

This has been done multiple times in multiple videos. You can also test it yourself in training grounds. I am sick of people saying the spider is fine when there is so much evidence that it is not. How about this... Show me the spider is fine.

Go into training grounds and find the large hole in the CT of the spider where it registers no damage and explain to me why this is acceptable.

You mean like this?
or
http://www.youtube.c...d&v=_FwyyM69tzs

Or perhaps you missed where PGI found an issue where certain weapons were not registering locations correctly on ALL mechs.

Edited by Mehlan, 17 October 2013 - 05:31 PM.

[General Taskeen]

Wispsy, on 17 October 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

No, Bigger tonnage means better, lowest tonnage means it should be terrible WHY WOULD YOU LEAVE THE ******* MWO BOX??!?!?!?

Not sure if trolling?

[Wispsy]

General Taskeen, on 17 October 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

Not sure if trolling?

yes trolling

[Kaijin]

Locusts excel at routing infantry and blowing up convoy trucks. If only MWO had these things, the Locust would have a purpose.

[Hellcat420]

guess what, the locust is a walmart mech. it is a cheap, easy to build, and basically a disposable scout mech. that is why it dies fast.

[Deathlike]

See the thread about Mordor Terra Therma? You'd just overheat w/o much effort, unless you were the 4 MG Locust.

Technically, if the engine upgrade ever occurs and the Flea+MASC is set to debut, then you'll probably have a lot more engine options to go with for a Locust. For now, Locusts are bait for Spiders+Commandos.

[WarGruf]

Ive had a 3 kill 5 assist match scoring a whopping 835 damage in a Locust 3M, I LOVE THE THING!

[Purlana]

I was out of ammo / weapons so I went to the cap while a locust was shooting me for 2-3 mins. Eventually a heavy came and rescued me. Also I cored his leg by running into him over and over. I fear not the locust

Edited by Purlana, 17 October 2013 - 05:38 PM.

[Fuggles]

the leg damage is a bit much on the things. a spider teamate of mine litterally legged me once by walking near me. its 50/50 weather or not you can make it out of the starting box with fresh armor on the legs.

can we please get leg armor raised to 20 so that well have even weight! no more 19.89!

[Mehlan]

I max out the leg armor on my lights when I can...

[Fabe]

Khobai, on 17 October 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

No theyre legitimate complaints. The Locust should not have to have 10 heatsinks. It quite frankly doesnt need that many with 4 machine guns as its main weapons.

Well unless PGI is doing something dumb those 10 heat sinks should be a integral part of the engine and take up no weight or critical slots. If they are taking up weight and/or slots then its one more thing to add to the list of things wrong with the game.

[Khobai]

They should either be integral to the engine, in which case they dont take up crit slots for engines lower than 250.

Or they should just remove the 10 heatsink min. requirement altogether.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 17 October 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

They should either be integral to the engine, in which case they dont take up crit slots for engines lower than 250.

Or they should just remove the 10 heatsink min. requirement altogether.

How about a compromise? Remove the 10 min rule, AND give sub-250 engines some extra sink slots to allocate more sinks if they so desire? For instance, an XL 190 currently has 7 internal sinks. As such, it would get 3 sink slots so that you could accommodate up to 10 sinks without being subjected to the critical slot tax.

[Fabe]

Khobai, on 17 October 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

They should either be integral to the engine, in which case they dont take up crit slots for engines lower than 250.

Or they should just remove the 10 heatsink min. requirement altogether.

FupDup, on 17 October 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

How about a compromise? Remove the 10 min rule, AND give sub-250 engines some extra sink slots to allocate more sinks if they so desire? For instance, an XL 190 currently has 7 internal sinks. As such, it would get 3 sink slots so that you could accommodate up to 10 sinks without being subjected to the critical slot tax.

The size of the engine should not matter,all battlemechs should be getting 10 heat sinks for free included with the engine.That is the way it works in tabletop ,that is they way it should work here.

[FupDup]

Fabe, on 17 October 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

The size of the engine should not matter,all battlemechs should be getting 10 heat sinks for free included with the engine.That is the way it works in tabletop ,that is they way it should work here.

Actually, the Tabletop mechanic was that sub-250 engines needed to place some of their heatsinks outside of the engine to tax critical slots for no good reason (they were weightless, however).

Although I do agree that I'd like to see all 10 in the engine for MWO specifically (I only suggested the compromise for folks who want that extra tonnage on a Commando or whatever, I can totally deal with 10 minimum sinks as long as they don't take up extra space).

Edited by FupDup, 17 October 2013 - 08:39 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

How about a compromise? Remove the 10 min rule, AND give sub-250 engines some extra sink slots to allocate more sinks if they so desire? For instance, an XL 190 currently has 7 internal sinks. As such, it would get 3 sink slots so that you could accommodate up to 10 sinks without being subjected to the critical slot tax.

Problem with that is you still have to allocate tonnage to heatsinks you dont need. Locusts dont need 10 heatsinks and forcing them to take 10 heatsinks when they dont need them is basically turning the 20 ton Locust into a 17 ton Locust.

I think the best solution is just get rid of the minimum 10 heatsinks rule. Thats what benefits the Locust the most and we all know the Locust needs all the help it can get.

Edited by Khobai, 17 October 2013 - 08:44 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 17 October 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

problem with that is you still have to allocate tonnage to heatsinks you dont need.

Under the compromise, you'd only have to pay tonnage if you actually took more than the internal sinks. For instance, on the XL 190 example, you could totally go with only 7 sinks and not need to spend the extra 3 tons.

[Khobai]

ok yeah that works as long as you arnt forced to take 10 heatsinks.

[Fabe]

FupDup, on 17 October 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

Actually, the Tabletop mechanic was that sub-250 engines needed to place some of their heatsinks outside of the engine to tax critical slots for no good reason (they were weightless, however).

Although I do agree that I'd like to see all 10 in the engine for MWO specifically (I only suggested the compromise for folks who want that extra tonnage on a Commando or whatever, I can totally deal with 10 minimum sinks as long as they don't take up extra space).

Really? Is that in the basic design rules found in the introductory box set rule book or is it from the TechManual rule book?

Edited by Fabe, 17 October 2013 - 08:49 PM.