Dear Pgi, Remove Minimum Heat Sinks! It Only Buffs Commandos And Locusts!
#1
Posted 23 October 2013 - 02:44 AM
Its true that no light should be able to touch an atlas, but they drop with equal costs, each mech costs one pilot. Until tonnage limits are added these little people need help.
Here are a few example builds that are quite good by light mech standards, but are impossible because you are required to add useless heatsinks (no large mechs ever need to add unnecessary sinks).
LCT-3S
4 ssrm
2t ammo
BAP
190 xl
125 armour
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...402ec0f97e45ee6
LCT-1V
4 mg
1 llas
2t ammo
190 xl
138 armour
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...cfebd030a038cf3
COM-2D
3 ssrm
1 mlas
2t ammo
ECM
1 DHS
210 xl
178 armour
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f30a50eba90e02e
#3
Posted 23 October 2013 - 03:06 AM
Levon K, on 23 October 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:
Tonnage limits aren't going to make these builds better, they're just going to mean someone has to play a bad build so someone else can play a good build.
Are you volunteering to drop in the bad 20-tonner so your team mate can play the fun build?
Tonnage limits may well become a game-breaker for some people.
#4
Posted 23 October 2013 - 03:11 AM
GYRO WEIGHT WILL BE INDEPENDENT FROM CHASSIS AND ENGINE
COCKPIT WEIGHT WILL BE INDEPENDENT FROM CHASSIS AND ENGINE
that way when stuff like XL/Compact Gyros and Compact Cockpits come out, we won;t have to retool the system 2 years after the game is in Launch-Launch-Launch-Launch-Launch
#5
Posted 23 October 2013 - 03:13 AM
#6
Posted 23 October 2013 - 03:43 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 23 October 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:
right now we're only given as much as a "Boot Battletech Player"
because we already have a 10 HS Minimum limit. I know for a fact I could run a 8 HS Commando in Closed beta.
So yeah, if PGI wants to go "CALL OF MECHWARRIOR: FUTURE WARFARE" then yes, just give us the 10 heatsinks already installed in the engine so we don;t have to deal with
YOU NEED X AMOUNT OF HEATSINKS
YOU NEED X AMOUNT OF HEATSINKS
YOU NEED X AMOUNT OF HEATSINKS
YOU NEED X AMOUNT OF HEATSINKS
#7
Posted 23 October 2013 - 03:48 AM
gavilatius, on 23 October 2013 - 03:43 AM, said:
right now we're only given as much as a "Boot Battletech Player"
because we already have a 10 HS Minimum limit. I know for a fact I could run a 8 HS Commando in Closed beta.
So yeah, if PGI wants to go "CALL OF MECHWARRIOR: FUTURE WARFARE" then yes, just give us the 10 heatsinks already installed in the engine so we don;t have to deal with
YOU NEED X AMOUNT OF HEATSINKS
YOU NEED X AMOUNT OF HEATSINKS
YOU NEED X AMOUNT OF HEATSINKS
YOU NEED X AMOUNT OF HEATSINKS
You could do that cause it was a glitch in the program. an Exploit. So you can't do what every BattleTech play has been able to do for 30 years? It is a canon rule, for regular play. Every Mech is built using those Mechanics, Heck the Locust I bought and upgraded to double sinks (already had Endo and FFA) was able to carry its 10 doubles!
Edited by Joseph Mallan, 23 October 2013 - 03:49 AM.
#8
Posted 23 October 2013 - 03:57 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 23 October 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:
MW:O doesn't have any army balancing mechanic other than the number of pilots. Copying TT where BV balances the game doesnt make sense. That Locust is good but it's not a competitive/finalized build, and that laserboating variant needs more sinks anyway so its a bad example.
#9
Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:24 AM
I have been redesigning Mechs for 30 years, and I have never been unable to get the required sinks in any Mech. But since PGI wants to use Solaris cyclic rates and 10 whole seconds to vent heat... The whole turn is 10 seconds, not just the heat phase!
Edited by Joseph Mallan, 23 October 2013 - 04:24 AM.
#10
Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:31 AM
stjobe, on 23 October 2013 - 03:06 AM, said:
Are you volunteering to drop in the bad 20-tonner so your team mate can play the fun build?
Tonnage limits may well become a game-breaker for some people.
That's a very narrow-sighted view. MWO is also missing objectives that speedy non-combat-oriented mechs would excel in. Right now it's basic combat objectives, ie. spot this mech, damage this mech, etc. Of course the Locust sucks right now, it's not meant for direct combat.
The game isn't finished yet, there's no point modifying the basic fundamentals of mech design just to make a locust more viable. Put tonnage limits in first, add objectives with CW, then determine if it needs a buff.
#11
Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:38 AM
- XL200 + 2 external heatsinks = 9.5 tons,
- XL175 + 3 external heatsinks = 8.5 tons,
- XL150 + 4 external heatsinks = 8.0 tons,
- XL125 + 5 external heatsinks = 7.0 tons.
P.S. Besides, i don't want an AC/20 locusts swarming me. It'd be... unpleasant. Alas if i could play one... Well... Call me crazy... Ok, may be your idea has some merits.
#12
Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:41 AM
#13
Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:01 AM
Levon K, on 23 October 2013 - 04:31 AM, said:
That's a very narrow-sighted view. MWO is also missing objectives that speedy non-combat-oriented mechs would excel in. Right now it's basic combat objectives, ie. spot this mech, damage this mech, etc. Of course the Locust sucks right now, it's not meant for direct combat.
The game isn't finished yet, there's no point modifying the basic fundamentals of mech design just to make a locust more viable. Put tonnage limits in first, add objectives with CW, then determine if it needs a buff.
The thing is, any 'mech with a sub-250 engine gets screwed by MWO's implementation of engine weight and heat sinks, not just the Locust, not just lights, any 'mech. It's just lights that suffer most from it, since they're the class with the least leeway in terms of available weight.
On my XL195 Commandos with DHS, I get 18.2 SHS-equivalent of cooling instead of 20, just because external DHS are 1.4 and the engine only comes with 7 true DHS. It's a silly, unnecessary, and pointless restriction.
And if you ever wanted the UrbanMech, you'd better hope they start "modifying the basic fundamentals of mech design" ASAP, because that one's impossible under the current engine implementation (the STD 60 engine it needs would have negative weight).
Every engine should come with 10 heat sinks at no extra weight cost. You will still need to allocate crit space for them, but they should all be treated the same (i.e. SHS=1.0, DHS=2.0). If they want to keep additional DHS above the first 10 at 1.4, go ahead, but don't force anyone with a sub-250 engine to mount more than 10 heat sinks to get the same cooling as 250+ engines with just the required 10.
Edited by stjobe, 23 October 2013 - 05:02 AM.
#14
Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:13 AM
CORRECTION:
I did just pull my 10th heat sink off my Locust. The weight dropped. That IS wrong. The first 10 sinks should not take up mass even if they must be put in Crit slots.
Edited by Joseph Mallan, 23 October 2013 - 05:19 AM.
#15
Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:15 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 23 October 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:
You can only barely do that on a raven and you can't do it at all on a locust. You're limited to 12.5 tons for weapons, ammo and armor, that's with a 100 XL, the 6 required heat sinks and endo steel.
Anyway the locust isn't as bad as a lot of people make it out to be, but it's definitely one of the least combat effective mechs out there at the moment. A good locust build can win a duel against a spider or non streak commando so there's that, though it depends heavily on pilot skill, but aside from that it's speed and the fact that it weighs only 20 tons are it's only advantages. I hope that when we finally get the flea and MASC the locust will get some kind of speed buff, either the option to equip MASC or a higher engine cap. 25 and 30 ton mechs really shouldn't be able to keep up with a max engine 20 ton mech.
#16
Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:18 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 23 October 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:
I did just pull my 10th heat sink off my Locust. The weight dropped. That IS wrong. The first 10 sinks should not take up mass even if they must be put in Crit slots.
That's what I'm saying. Even though BT requires some heat sinks to be external to the engine, the first 10 heat sinks' weight is included in the engine weight. In MWO they're not (although instead gyro, cockpit, and life support are included).
And there's of course the whole DHS debacle, where those external DHS for some weird and probably wonderful reason (4-second Jenner anyone?) are 1.4 - which robs my Commandos of 1.8 heat capacity.
Edited by stjobe, 23 October 2013 - 05:21 AM.
#17
Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:21 AM
stjobe, on 23 October 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:
Does the actual total weight change or is it the same?
#19
Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:27 AM
***** n stuff, on 23 October 2013 - 05:21 AM, said:
If I remember correctly there's about four engines that differ in total weight (some +0.5 tons, some -0.5 tons). Otherwise they work out to the same weight as in TT when you add in the heat sinks to get to the required 10.
So for me it's not the weight that is the main issue, but the heat capacity and dissipation.
And the Urbie, of course
Joseph Mallan, on 23 October 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:
Broken, well. It's implemented differently.
In TT, engine+gyro+cockpit+up to 10 heat sinks weighs a certain amount.
In MWO gyro and cockpit weight is included in the engine weight, and the weight of external heat sinks required to get to 10 is subtracted from that weight, which then corresponds to the TT weight.
As an example:
A 100-rated engine in TT weighs 3 tons. A 100-rated gyro weighs 1 ton, and a cockpit weighs 3 tons. Sum total (including any number of heat sinks up to 10): 7 tons.
A 100-rated engine in TT weighs 1 ton, but it only comes with 4 heat sinks. Add in another 6 heat sinks to get to the required 10 and the total weight is 7 tons, just as TT.
Where it breaks down, of course, is sub-100 rated engines, like the STD 60 required for the Urbie, and in the fact that all those external heat sinks will be 1.4 DHS, giving any sub-250 engine an artificially lowered heat capacity compared to TT.
Edited by stjobe, 23 October 2013 - 05:34 AM.
#20
Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:27 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 23 October 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:
Thanks, but that's not what I meant.
Is the weight different from TT or not? Because if it's the same I don't see the problem.
Edit:
stjobe, on 23 October 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:
So for me it's not the weight that is the main issue, but the heat capacity and dissipation.
And the Urbie, of course
Ah that's it, well that would be easy to solve, just change the 2.0 dissipation and capacity for the engine heat sinks to 2.0 for the first 10 heat sinks.
Edited by Satan n stuff, 23 October 2013 - 05:30 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users