78 replies to this topic

[MonkeyCheese]

Egomane, on 23 October 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

It has already been said in this thread.

In the original construction rules 10 heatsinks always come weight free with the engine. If they don't fit into the engine they take up extra critical slots.

Removing the 10 heatsink limit would cause a rise in engine weight, as PGI is already accomodating the weight for the extra sinks in lowering the weight of the reactor.

The formula for reactor weight in MWO is:
original weight (variable) plus cockpit (3 tons) plus gyro (Engine-rating/100, round up to next full ton) minus additional heatsinks needed

Removing the necessary heatsinks but keeping the lower weight, is like looking for a legal cheat of the system.

But the builds man, we need more build possibilities just like every other mech, If this was the atlas it is like having 25 standard heat sinks on the mech and then adding the weight of the engine. I still dont think this would in any way break the game if the flea/locust had this rule removed.

Everyone loves the possibilities that can happen within the games mechlab, so many different builds for every mech, even the commando but the locust gets the raw end of the deal. Sure the energy boat locust will need heat sinks but the other two dont and can be perfectly manageable with out the extras.




Either remove the requirement or we need new weapons already.

A quick look here for small weapons a locust could carry that we dont have
http://www.sarna.net...Equipment_Lists and dont say timeline because that is already out the window.

IS weapon types that would for most just need tweaks to numbers as most types already exist in game so it is just a new name and number tweaks, even if PGI puts their own spin on things.

Energy

• ER ML 1 ton
  
• ER SL 0.5tons
  
• ER Flamer 1 ton
  
• Heavy flamer 1.5tons
  
• Light ppc 3 tons
  
• x Pulse lasers - med 2 tons small 1 ton

Ballistic

• Magshot .05 tons
  
• Light AC2 4 tons
  
• Light AC5 5 tons
  
• Light Rifle 3 tons
  
• Medium Rifle 5 tons

Missile

• Enhanced LRM5 3 tons
  
• Multi-Missile Launcher3 1.5 tons
  
• Multi-Missile Launcher5 3 tons
  
• Multi-Missile Launcher7 4.5 tons
  
• Medium-Range Missile10 3 tons
  
• Mech Mortar 1 2tons
  
• Mech Mortar 2 5 tons

Well I can dream at least


I would list Clan weapons but I don't expect any to come until the clan "expansion" comes, Although most are lighter weapons.


TLDR we need locust variety either from the heat sink rule or new weapons

Edited by MonkeyCheese, 23 October 2013 - 02:40 PM.

[One of Little Harmony]

Ironwithin, on 18 October 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

You either go fast or you go heavily armed, that's the decision you have to make with every mech, 20tonners included.

And yes, running 5 medlas for example IS going heavily armed for the locust. You have to make do with lower speeds and dismal heat-efficency.

People are way too used to the ridiculous toughness of the spider or the firepower of jenners when it comes to lights. You are not supposed to singlehandedly take on anything above your tonnage in any light and expect to survive.


The real problem is not the heatsinks. The problem is not having any incentive to play a fast, almost unarmed scout compared to stomping around in a heavy or assault 'mech. In theory scouts should play a very important role but with the simple teamdeathmatch going on now they just don't.


Edit: Playing around with the Locust on smurfy I do not even get where these complaints are coming from... you can use every single hardpoint on all the Locusts with a 190xl engine, ferro, endo, 3 DHS and max armor. That thing is wicked.

-153.9 kph
-5mlas+1extra DHS OR 1medpuls+4mg+2tons of ammo OR 1mlas+4srm2+1ton of ammo

That's awesome firepower for that tiny thing ! If only the srms weren't so "weird" with hit-registration right now...

This is the build I want to make: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e29bfe519c2bad9

No, I cannot make it, at least without severely crippling my armor. And the locust is no invincible spider.

[MonkeyCheese]

One of Little Harmony, on 23 October 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

This is the build I want to make: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e29bfe519c2bad9

No, I cannot make it, at least without severely crippling my armor. And the locust is no invincible spider.

If it was possible it would perform better with a 180xl and BAP
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...cdb5195e4fc9e9f

[Mahws]

Egomane, on 23 October 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

It has already been said in this thread.

In the original construction rules 10 heatsinks always come weight free with the engine. If they don't fit into the engine they take up extra critical slots.

Removing the 10 heatsink limit would cause a rise in engine weight, as PGI is already accomodating the weight for the extra sinks in lowering the weight of the reactor.

The formula for reactor weight in MWO is:
original weight (variable) plus cockpit (3 tons) plus gyro (Engine-rating/100, round up to next full ton) minus additional heatsinks needed

Removing the necessary heatsinks but keeping the lower weight, is like looking for a legal cheat of the system.

And?

So what if it's table top rules? It's a poor rule. Always has and always will be. Removing the requirement won't suddenly make sub 250 engines unbalanced. They'll still be too slow to take for anything larger than a 25 tonne mech and the lower amount of heatsinks is already its own punishment.

We don't have randomized hits, the heat system is completely different and unlike in TT 20-25 tonne mechs are supposed to exist for a reason other than to give players some weak mooks to explode. It's no more a 'legal cheat' than the increased heat capacity, pinpoit shooting, speadtweak or AC/2 that do 40 damage in a single round.

[Asmosis]

^^ you dont seem to get it. if the 10 heatsink rule is removed, engines weigh more.

Also (this dates back to closed beta) they dont, or at least didnt have a way of making external heat sinks below 10 weightless and ones 11+ weigh 1 ton, its a game engine limit. Effectively you would be penalising mechs who need 10+ heatsinks but use a smaller engine.

Theres certainly a few builds that can benefit from having less than 10 heat sinks total, but its not due to weight its due to crit slot alloction that those external heat sinks take up. This is mainly for med/heavy ballistic mechs, light mechs dont have the same issues running out of crit slots.

[Mahws]

No, I understand perfectly how the table top rules work and how engine weights are calculated. I just don't care. Having engines that weigh less than TT standard by dropping the extra unnecessary heatsinks isn't a problem. Losing the heatsinks is its own disadvantage and the way it is only serves to needlessly handicap <30 tonne mechs even more than they already are.

There's no potential balance issues introduced with the change and the current system is only in place because 'table top says so'. Seems like a no brainer to ditch it like all the other rules that don't translate well have been.

[Aegic]

I have 2 Locusts and I have no problem with the 10 heatsink rule.

Usually pull 100-250 damage a match and have pulled off 300+ on multiple occasions while still kicking over 150kph. Sure I have an XL engine but my armor is maxed on my legs with some more everywhere else and I am so tiny that its hard for most mechs to hit me.

Took out a Jenner last night 1v1 6x MLas and all I had was 1x Mlas and 4x MG, he wasnt bad either.

TLDR, 10 heatsinks requirement is fine and working as intended IMHO.

[Asmosis]

Its a 20 ton mech. Honestly people are expecting way too much out of it. Locusts wouldnt benefit at all from reverting to standard engine weight + no heat sink limit, the chassis with the most to gain from that is the jaggermech since those crit slots directly reduce ammo availability on heavy ballistic setups. 1 DHS = 3 tons less ammo when ac5's and uac5's generate barely any heat.

[Mahws]

Which would be a problem if a 200/225 Jager didn't move slower than an assault mech. The only ballistics mech that would really benefit would be the non-1X Blackjacks and honestly they could use that little bit of benefit.

Locust and Commandos would benefit plenty. The option to use those 2/3 tonnes on weapons/armor/engine would open up a lot more build options. For example the locust 3S would be able to run high alpha hit and fade missile builds. The 1V would be able to actually fit an AC/2 with ammo. You could do a decent missile boat build on a Commando without having to choose between FF and DHS.

I don't expect Locusts and Commandos to be good, I'd just like them to not be arbitrarily handicapped by a pointless game mechanic.

Edited by Mahws, 23 October 2013 - 10:20 PM.

[Ironwithin]

Look guys...it's simple: If you go to war, you don't drive a Honda Civic.
The Locust is simply not a good 'mech for the game we have right now, just like the Commando or the Awesome. Taking out core-limitations or creating exceptions may help those things now but just barely. Down the road, when/if we finally get gamemodes where weight matters, you'll have broken the "natural order of things" and there will be lots of crying about reinstating those rules.

Examples:

I wasn't around back then but I've been told prior to HSR PPCs and ACs where horrible, horrible wastes of tonnage, so PGI made them better but they still sucked. Then HSR for those came (I think just before I started playing) and for months on end all you ever saw on 'mechs were assaults and heavies boating PPCs, AC2s or AC20s with the occasional PPC Cicada or Spider thrown in. So they reversed many of the boosts given to those weapons AND came up with ghostheat *shudders* to battle the boating . It works. Is it pretty ? Don't think so.

Now we have the SRM-mess and HSR not working properly, PGI was so kind to let us decide if we'd want SRMs to be buffed until they can fix it and said they'd undo the buff when they do. Nice of PGI, SRMs still suck though. Once the problems are fixed however, there'll be an orgasm of SRM-brawlers errupting across all matches and then they will find some other creative way to "fix" it leading to more whining and complaining and possible problems.

Getting what you think you want is not always a good thing.

Yes it sucks, just avoid the thing if you don't like it. Maybe the sudden drop in Locusts in-game makes PGI rethink the design, probably not (the Awesome is STILL crappy).
There are things that are broken because it's not a complete game, yet, no matter losing the little BETA in the logo.
Just stay away from those things until we have the complete picture. Hotfixing things that are NOT bugs does not lead to desired results.

[Mahws]

Close, but no cigar. The PPC was the weapon that was over the top once HSR came in, not ballistics. Ballistics were actually pretty well balanced before HSR and HSR didn't change much.

That aside, care to tell me how exactly you envision Locusts and Commandos one day being OP? There are heavier mechs that can run just as fast. MASC won't help as it favours heavier lights. So at some point there's going to be some change that comes along that makes the 5-10 tonne difference between Locust/Commandos and Spiders (the lightest mech not to have to equip extra heatsinks) extremely important (and more important than the massive disadvantages they have compared to heavier lights)? But not if they have a handicap of being forced to equip extra external heatsinks (which would only apply for the builds that don't boat energy weapons).

If you can come up with any way, at all, that both of those things could happen I will personally go purchase a hat so I can eat it.

Edited by Mahws, 24 October 2013 - 12:32 AM.

[Ironwithin]

Mahws, on 24 October 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

If you can come up with any way, at all, that both of those things could happen I will personally go purchase a hat so I can eat it.

I have absolutely no idea and I'm not very creative with this kind of thing. Good thing I'm not a game-designer, hu ?
Spending some time thinking on it maybe I do come up with something but the chances of you passing too much fibre are very slim at best.

Does your offer still stand if PGI comes up with something ? They have a knack for stuff like that.
Because if it does I am oh so very interested in how all this turns out in a couple of months or so.

[Egomane]

MonkeyCheese, on 23 October 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

and dont say timeline because that is already out the window.

It's on hold, not out of the window! Completly different!

Mahws, on 23 October 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

No, I understand perfectly how the table top rules work and how engine weights are calculated. I just don't care. Having engines that weigh less than TT standard by dropping the extra unnecessary heatsinks isn't a problem. Losing the heatsinks is its own disadvantage and the way it is only serves to needlessly handicap <30 tonne mechs even more than they already are.

So you want to exploit a game mechanic, MWO introduced, to your favor. A game mechanic we wouldn't even be talking or knowing about if PGI created their engine/cockpit/gyro implementation more along the base rules. You do want a legal cheat to the battletech universe, because MWO showed you how to do it.

Mahws, on 23 October 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

There's no potential balance issues introduced with the change and the current system is only in place because 'table top says so'. Seems like a no brainer to ditch it like all the other rules that don't translate well have been.

[sarcasm]
Ok... while we are at it, throw away the need for heatsinks and heat all together, they are an abitrary rule from the tabletop to introduce a form of balance and we all know that the rule doesn't work for MWO. I don't see any balance issues with that either.
[/sarcasm]

There are some things that should not be touched! The core elements of mech construction are among them.

[MonkeyCheese]

Ironwithin, on 24 October 2013 - 12:16 AM, said:

Look guys...it's simple: If you go to war, you don't drive a Honda Civic.

How dare you, I love my 92 honda civic =D

[Burning Chrome]

[Valten]

Tokra, on 18 October 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

No, it does now. The engines under 250 weight less because of the less heat sinks.
The remove of the rule only help these mechs that have ballistic weapons. or do you really want a mech with large laser or PPC with only 6 heat sinks? In best case you can get one free ton from one heatsinks for mechs that dont have more than one laser.

Not so. I will use the 100 just as an example but this remains true elsewhere. a 100 engine in MWO weighs 1 ton and requires 6 heat sinks to be added for a total weight of 7 tons, whereas in TT the same engine weighs 3 tons and has an intrinsic 10 heat sinks.

Now I'm totally good with making us use the critical space for the heat sinks, after all a small engine doesn't have the space and light mechs shouldn't have the same number of crits as an assault anyway, but to make the engine >200% heavier is unacceptable.

I recommend that the heatsinks not located in the engine still be provided but that they become dynamic heat sinks just like the endo steel and ferofibrous criticals.

Edited by Valten, 24 October 2013 - 11:10 AM.

[MrBlonde42]

I agree with the OP. Core TT construction rule or not, MWO is not TT it is a FPS game based on(read: not a copy of) a TT game and the intellectual property from the TT game. Just like the doubling of armor, increased rate of fire, and ghost heat (I do wish they had done something different there) the TT doesn't translate 1:1 with a FPS, so an adjustment needs to be made.

[Chavette]

/signed

Make the limit smaller starting sub 40 tons.

I don't even run a light but its a fact that rarely anything other than mlas are viable on them.

1, Because of the small leftover weight from the restriction
2, Because having non energy weapons thus not using that heat sink capacity would be a waste

Edited by Chavette, 24 October 2013 - 12:11 PM.

[Grendel408]

The Locust is (like the coming Flea [hopefully]) a wickedly small and fragile Mech... it's meant to harass and scout... that's it. So, here's the three builds I've done for my Locust variants... Does the HS rule need to be adjusted? Not in my opinion, but if the Devs decide to change the rule, it effects more than just Light Mechs, the entire game mechanics for engine ratings must be changed for balance... Note, my 3M is a walking AMS/TAG support Mech... the 2 MLas are purely for quick defense... done with an XL180, which after speed tweak will give me the speed I desire... may save up for an XL190 should the need arise.

Edited by Grendel408, 24 October 2013 - 12:18 PM.