4831 replies to this topic

[IraqiWalker]

TheFourthAlly, on 04 May 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

I played with the C-marked trial version, had good fun regarding the speed and scouting activities. That made me pick up the PB, as I liked the ECM and extra earnings. I bought the 1E a while back to tick the basic skills, but sold it to make room in the stable. Didn't realise its potential at the time, still a learning newb and all. I picked up a good number of mechbays last sale, so this one is now bought and using the PB's enigine.

Had 1 match in total, annoyed the heck out of several assaults, killed one Timby. Yeah, this one feels good alright.

I have a move coming up, anyone want to bet how fast the new place is connected to the internet?

See you in a while, fingers crossed.

One of the pros of the locust is how cheap it is. You can sell'em, and rebuy them later with minimal impact to your wallet.

[Ertur]

DrxAbstract, on 02 May 2017 - 01:39 AM, said:

Your math is still wrong because there is nothing anywhere that says or shows the Locust is 50% of the Jenner's height, length and width... Nothing, i.e. You made it up. I can take fabricated numerics and throw out figures supporting my argument and try to sound like I'm making a legitimate claim too... Except anyone that knows otherwise will spot it real quick and call me out on it, much like our current situation.

I'd rather play the game than talk about it in the forums, so I've put off replying for a while. I did grab some screenshots, but I can't be bothered to put them up. As for where I found that the locust is about half the height of a Jenner, I have these things called "eyes." You probably have them, too, they're the gelatinous orbs on either side of your nose. With these "eyes" I can do a thing called "seeing." It's a great skill to have. By using my "eyes" to "see" the relative sizes of the Locust and Jenner I was able to estimate that the Locust is about half the height of a Jenner.

Now, I don't know if English is your second, third, or tenth language, so I'll just explain something else to you. When a native English speaker tosses the word "about" into a sentence, there is an implication that there is a certain amount of estimation that is involved. I never said the Locust is EXACTLY 50% of the height of a Jenner, I said it was "about" half. The only person saying exactly 50% is you, ie: YOU are the one making stuff up.

DrxAbstract, on 02 May 2017 - 01:39 AM, said:

PGI released a picture that was a visual representation of re-scaled Mechs side-by-side on a standardized grid, which is the only bonafide size-proofing we actually have. Using that as a baseline, you can easily see the Locust's length, width and height are nowhere near 1/2 the Jenner's.

This is where I was going to post lots of pictures, showing the mechbay images of both, with all kinds of annotations and superimposed comparisons, but I lost interest. You can look for yourself. You can also go into the testing ground in a Locust and find the immobile Jenner and stand next to it. In-engine, the Locust is about half the height of the Jenner. You can look up from the Locust and barely see the underbelly of the Jenner's CT. You can see that the Mechbay scale for these two mechs are pretty accurate. Just for grins I was going to include a picture of the Jenner getting headshot, but whatever. There's an event, I've got mechs to grind EXP before the new skill Charlie foxtrot, and there's better things to do.

DrxAbstract, on 02 May 2017 - 01:39 AM, said:

This is also ignoring the fact you're not dealing with cubes that have a fixed, uniform geometry but the total surface area of a geometric amalgamation possessing several points of a varying length, width and height, which completely invalidates any attempt at using basic geometric shapes as an appropriate sizing methodology or proper example--It doesnt matter if it's as flat as a pancake, as tall as a skyscraper and thin as a pencil as long as the Locust's total surface area is 57% of a Jenner's... End of discussion.

You almost start to have a good point about the different topologies of the mechs, but then you lose your way. The use of basic geometric shapes to get an approximation of more complex ones is actually how this is done in real life. It's also how the game actually works. The basic plan or geometry of the Jenner and Locust (and the Raven, too) is a long narrow center torso with flat stubby arms and little side torsos. They are more similar to each other than they would be to a Firestarter, Wolfhound, Cheetah, or whatever else.
And then you totally lose the ball. Your comment about surface area being the important thing is not even wrong. It's wrong ^10. Here's why: Stuff has a property called "density." All matter has this property. Regardless of the unit used (US customary, metric, Biblical cubits, Klingon whatevers) density is mass/lengths ^3. Surface area is always lengths ^2. If you multiply the two, you end up with mass/length which isn't a unit of anything. Volume times density = weight: m/l^3 * l^3 = w. What you suggest is: m/l^3 * l^2 = w which is completely beyond wrong.
Where surface area would matter is thermodynamics or heat transfer, which is irrelevant.

Anyways, approximation isn't a bad thing. In fact, everything in the real world is actually an approximation. An easy example is anything that involves pi (which is almost everything, eventually). No matter what value you use for pi, it will always be an approximation. It may be a very very good approximation, but it can never be the actual value, because pi never ends. Ever. If you turned every atom in the universe into a sheet of paper, and filled every sheet with a thousand digits of pi, you would be exactly 0% of the way done with the goal of finding the exact value of pi. What makes approximating the value of pi work is that each digit is less important than the one before. So even a poor approximation of pi, like 22/7, is good enough to build a Greek temple. A better approximation, like 355/113, can be used for early industrial applications.

Anyways, I need to do more scouting missions.

[Burning2nd]

Just so you know you, your math is wrong.. It is more then 50%

its closer to 58-61%
If you use the background as a standard... the locust arms protrude past the half way mark....

Just saying...

*you really want to toe to toe with a machinist?

Edited by Burnin2nd, 06 May 2017 - 03:17 PM.

[DrxAbstract]

Ertur, on 06 May 2017 - 12:10 PM, said:

I'd rather play the game than talk about it in the forums, so I've put off replying for a while. I did grab some screenshots, but I can't be bothered to put them up. As for where I found that the locust is about half the height of a Jenner, I have these things called "eyes." You probably have them, too, they're the gelatinous orbs on either side of your nose. With these "eyes" I can do a thing called "seeing." It's a great skill to have. By using my "eyes" to "see" the relative sizes of the Locust and Jenner I was able to estimate that the Locust is about half the height of a Jenner.

Eyes are flawed organic constructs that transmit chemical signals to the brain (Which is also a flawed organic construct) in an attempt to interpret the respective electromagnetic spectrum. The sensory information can, and often is, poorly interpreted by the brain and thus accurate depictions of objects, even from several perspectives and angles, is very difficult. This is why we have things like tape measures, rulers and leveling devices--Because eyes are not capable of accurate measurements without standardized baseline manipulation... Which makes everything you think you know because you 'looked' at it, without any form of actual measuring device, speculative in the absolute best case scenario and likely (In this case obviously) wrong.

Ertur, on 06 May 2017 - 12:10 PM, said:

Now, I don't know if English is your second, third, or tenth language, so I'll just explain something else to you. When a native English speaker tosses the word "about" into a sentence, there is an implication that there is a certain amount of estimation that is involved. I never said the Locust is EXACTLY 50% of the height of a Jenner, I said it was "about" half. The only person saying exactly 50% is you, ie: YOU are the one making stuff up.

Intelligence must not be your strongest suit, so I offer this simple tidbit: You're not speaking one language, nor was English even the most important language spoken--You're speaking two; English and Mathematics.

Saying the locust is "about" half the size is one thing, however you decided to carry that statement even further into mathematical 'proofing' using "1/2", which literally means half, or 50% of. If you didn't actually mean half then don't use the exact mathematical definition of half as supportive material for your argument and conclusions... Derp.

Ertur, on 06 May 2017 - 12:10 PM, said:

This is where I was going to post lots of pictures, showing the mechbay images of both, with all kinds of annotations and superimposed comparisons, but I lost interest. You can look for yourself. You can also go into the testing ground in a Locust and find the immobile Jenner and stand next to it. In-engine, the Locust is about half the height of the Jenner. You can look up from the Locust and barely see the underbelly of the Jenner's CT. You can see that the Mechbay scale for these two mechs are pretty accurate. Just for grins I was going to include a picture of the Jenner getting headshot, but whatever. There's an event, I've got mechs to grind EXP before the new skill Charlie foxtrot, and there's better things to do.

And then there's the official side-by-side comparison chart released by PGI that makes all of your chest puffing irrelevant... I would post that but it's easy enough to find.

Ertur, on 06 May 2017 - 12:10 PM, said:

You almost start to have a good point about the different topologies of the mechs, but then you lose your way. The use of basic geometric shapes to get an approximation of more complex ones is actually how this is done in real life. It's also how the game actually works. The basic plan or geometry of the Jenner and Locust (and the Raven, too) is a long narrow center torso with flat stubby arms and little side torsos. They are more similar to each other than they would be to a Firestarter, Wolfhound, Cheetah, or whatever else.

And this is where you diverge from what you actually said into backtracking via accurate yet completely invalid respective information. Anyone familiar with CGI knows geometric shapes are arranged in such a manner as to produce another geometric object, or groups of objects to produce another, such as a Mech. Circles, as an example, are actually impossible to create using CGI because.. *drum roll*... no sides. You can still use polygons to create the impression of a circle, but a real circle is impossible. All of that is completely beside the point, and not what you said. You folded in on yourself using cubes, in your attempt to not explain how the Locust is not half the height, width or length of a Jenner... Which wasnt even an applicable statement due to being way down the wrong road.

Ertur, on 06 May 2017 - 12:10 PM, said:

And then you totally lose the ball. Your comment about surface area being the important thing is not even wrong. It's wrong ^10. Here's why: Stuff has a property called "density." All matter has this property. Regardless of the unit used (US customary, metric, Biblical cubits, Klingon whatevers) density is mass/lengths ^3. Surface area is always lengths ^2. If you multiply the two, you end up with mass/length which isn't a unit of anything. Volume times density = weight: m/l^3 * l^3 = w. What you suggest is: m/l^3 * l^2 = w which is completely beyond wrong.
Where surface area would matter is thermodynamics or heat transfer, which is irrelevant.

Of course... I'm wrong because you can't seem to properly apply what vast knowledge you've gleaned from google . Mechs have no stated Density. You can't even properly apply a Density solution because they are not comprised of uniformity--We have their Volume because it's a parameter we (PGI) can control and we have their Mass because their tonnages are predetermined values. However, because they are not comprised of a uniform arrangement, determining their density is impossible. PGI says Tonnage = Total Volume, which again means that as long as the Locust weighs 20 tons, it should occupy 57% of the total area a Jenner would... Which again means it can be as tall as a skyscraper yet as thin as a hair, as long as the total volume is 57%. Density is irrelevant, and at this point a distraction.

[the sixth tier]

it doesn't look to me like the locust comprises 57% of the volume of a jenner. hell, how many locusts do you think could fit inside an atlas? that whole long post just strikes me as sophism when you can just look at the 'mechs and tell that the scale clearly isn't right. arguing over to what extent doesn't change that.

[Lily from animove]

Wow Abstract, tahts probably the biggest nonsense EVER.

given that allt he scientists have measured evertyhing on scales and written down and all these information are just received by seeign something as data on a screen an writing it down by our vision, this means would mostlikely be wrong.


the truth is, our eyes are the most accurate tool we currently have to measure things as we hae developed the ability to turn any non visible date of the world into visible data. This granted us the ability to observe out world and generate knwoledge form observations, since nearly all out knowledge is based on observation.

[Ertur]

Anyone else taking their Phoenix LCT-1V out for the lols during the event?

I recommend it.

Anyways.

DrxAbstract, on 06 May 2017 - 09:32 PM, said:

[...] it should occupy 57% of the total area a Jenner would... Which again means it can be as tall as a skyscraper yet as thin as a hair, as long as the total volume is 57%.

You use area and volume interchangeably. Ain't my intelligence what's lackin', pal. You also rail against my (admittedly) ad hoc use of in-engine observations, and suggest that it would be superior to use some chart that one of their artists drew up by hand for the website. We don't play on the website, we play in the engine.

Burnin2nd, on 06 May 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

Just so you know you, your math is wrong.. It is more then 50%

its closer to 58-61%
If you use the background as a standard... the locust arms protrude past the half way mark....

Fair enough. I'd go so far as to guess that the proportions are closer to 4:7 than 1:2. It's as if someone thought, "Well, the Locust is 4/7ths the weight, so it should be 4/7ths the size," and then applied that 4/7ths to each dimension. Which is completely wrong.

[Erronius]

The relative size of imaginary space robots is serious business

[stealthraccoon]

Erronius, on 09 May 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

The relative size of imaginary space robots is serious business

If a pretend robot stomps in space, and no one has radar locks, would it make a sound?

[DrxAbstract]

Lily from animove, on 09 May 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

Wow Abstract, tahts probably the biggest nonsense EVER.

given that allt he scientists have measured evertyhing on scales and written down and all these information are just received by seeign something as data on a screen an writing it down by our vision, this means would mostlikely be wrong.


the truth is, our eyes are the most accurate tool we currently have to measure things as we hae developed the ability to turn any non visible date of the world into visible data. This granted us the ability to observe out world and generate knwoledge form observations, since nearly all out knowledge is based on observation.

Observations made with measuring devices. Try actually reading what I wrote, Lily. Better yet--Go build a house without any measurement tools and see how it turns out. Eyes are good for estimation, not precision. Some people can ballpark better than others, but the fact remains eyes, or more accurately our brains, are prone to error. Optical illusions wouldn't be a thing otherwise.

Ertur, on 09 May 2017 - 09:08 AM, said:

You use area and volume interchangeably. Ain't my intelligence what's lackin', pal. You also rail against my (admittedly) ad hoc use of in-engine observations, and suggest that it would be superior to use some chart that one of their artists drew up by hand for the website. We don't play on the website, we play in the engine.

I use them interchangeably? Not quite. I've said repeatedly it should possess a relative area/surface area because Area would be more accurate than Volume as the game is 2D... but we knew that, right? PGI said 'Volume' because we are technically dealing with 3D objects, and within that context they're not wrong, but the actual representation is 2D. According to PGI the Volume is 57% of a Jenner i.e. total viewing area.

The chart was made to scale, chief. Unlike eyeballing Mechs in the Mech Lab, which PGI even outright tells you the Mech Lab does not accurately display Mech sizes, the chart is an accurate side-by-side comparison of Mechs. So some random person saying his opinion is fact or a chart released by the game developer... Hmm, tough choice there. If you were intelligent you would have realized all this for yourself instead of insisting you can accurately eyeball them using mock ups and in-game imagery while ignoring the fact the views from in-game are skewed.

[the sixth tier]

honestly, i'm not super surprised that in a thread dedicated to locusts there are a lot of people vehemently asserting that the proportions are correct and attributing any measure of success to their awe-inspiring skill.

it's kinda' funny how defensive people can get over the mere mention of a scale discrepancy tho

[DeeHawk]

the sixth tier, on 13 May 2017 - 10:35 AM, said:

honestly, i'm not super surprised that in a thread dedicated to locusts there are a lot of people vehemently asserting that the proportions are correct and attributing any measure of success to their awe-inspiring skill.

it's kinda' funny how defensive people can get over the mere mention of a scale discrepancy tho

People get tunnel vision in these debates, when someone starts mentioning numbers that have no relevance for game design. I haven't seen a lot of people actually claiming that the weight to size ratio are correct, however from a balance perspective, I'd claim the sizing is just fine. (Not related to weight, but I couldn't really care less about fictional weight properties of science fiction machines build with science fiction materials and design...)

People get defensive when ignorants scream 'NERF!' about something that doesn't need a nerf. If you hate a specific mech, then one should try to master it. Chance is you'll eat your words.

Edited by DeeHawk, 15 May 2017 - 01:17 AM.

[Fox With A Shotgun]

So, with the great dequirkening around the corner, fellow light mech players, let us discuss how we shall punish our fatbros without as much help as before.

The biggest challenge here is the great losses all lights take across the board when it comes to agility. Locusts in particular will lose anything between 50% to 90% bonus accel/decel/turnrate/yaw/pitch. They will also lose a significant portion of their offensive quirks.

So, with that out of the way, let's discuss our options as to how to go about skilling your little bugs.

Durability tree? Nope. Just no. The biggest possible gain to your armor is around 5 measly points per component, or about 30 armor in total. This is a saving of approximately 1 whole ton of locust, for a huge cost of nearly half your skill nodes.

There is 8% of heat generation reduction + 10% heat dissipation improvement spread between both firepower and operations. Considering that Hill Climb is also on operations, this may be quite useful a pick for Locusts (and lights in general). 8% heat generation reduction on a 6-spl LCT-1E build is worth about 0.5 heat/sec reduction, which is worth approximately 3.5 non-engine DHS. On a mech with PoorDubs like the Locust, this is especially valuable. This represents a saving of around 3.5 tons of equipment and 10.5 crits, which will not fit on the Locust otherwise.

There has been talk about consumables, but this is largely...ehh...

If you have a load of CBills hanging around, you could technically neglect the operations tree and just load up on coolshots. You won't earn much (or may even lose) CBills every match, but you'll have stupid amounts of damage to dish out without overheating.

Thoughts?

Edited by Fox With A Shotgun, 16 May 2017 - 01:42 AM.

[DrxAbstract]

Fox With A Shotgun, on 16 May 2017 - 01:34 AM, said:

So, with the great dequirkening around the corner, fellow light mech players, let us discuss how we shall punish our fatbros without as much help as before.

The biggest challenge here is the great losses all lights take across the board when it comes to agility. Locusts in particular will lose anything between 50% to 90% bonus accel/decel/turnrate/yaw/pitch. They will also lose a significant portion of their offensive quirks.

So, with that out of the way, let's discuss our options as to how to go about skilling your little bugs.

Durability tree? Nope. Just no. The biggest possible gain to your armor is around 5 measly points per component, or about 30 armor in total. This is a saving of approximately 1 whole ton of locust, for a huge cost of nearly half your skill nodes.

There is 18% of heat generation reduction spread between both firepower and operations. Considering that Hill Climb is also on operations, this may be quite useful a pick for Locusts (and lights in general). 18% heat generation reduction on a 6-spl LCT-1E build is worth about 0.8 heat/sec reduction, which is worth approximately 5 non-engine DHS. On a mech with PoorDubs like the Locust, this is especially valuable. This represents a saving of around 5 tons of equipment and 15 crits, which will not fit on the Locust otherwise.

There has been talk about consumables, but this is largely...ehh...

If you have a load of CBills hanging around, you could technically neglect the operations tree and just load up on coolshots. You won't earn much (or may even lose) CBills every match, but you'll have stupid amounts of damage to dish out without overheating.

Thoughts?

Mobility-->Firepower-->Operations, ordered from greatest priority to least. Survival comes in at 4th because a couple points there will make glancing shots take longer to burn holes in your legs.

Load up on agility, boost your respective weapons then fill out some general performance enhancements in Ops and, if you have the points, Survival or Auxiliary.

[DeeHawk]

What's your opinion on viability of Radar Depr. Information Gathering and Target Decay, in light of the new meta of removing Radar Deprivation from most mechs?

It seems for a scout, these suddenly become a lot more powerful than before.

[Fox With A Shotgun]

DeeHawk, on 16 May 2017 - 02:41 AM, said:

What's your opinion on viability of Radar Depr. Information Gathering and Target Decay, in light of the new meta of removing Radar Deprivation from most mechs?

It seems for a scout, these suddenly become a lot more powerful than before.

It would really depend on how many points we have left to spare after mobility, firepower and ops. If these cost too much to get to, it wouldn't really be worth it.

For LRM boats, though, TD is definitely still required. Scout / ECM mechs would definitely still benefit from RDep, especially when Stealth Armor comes around.

Edited by Fox With A Shotgun, 16 May 2017 - 03:52 AM.

[Virlutris]

Fox With A Shotgun, on 16 May 2017 - 01:34 AM, said:

So, with the great dequirkening around the corner, fellow light mech players, let us discuss how we shall punish our fatbros without as much help as before.

The biggest challenge here is the great losses all lights take across the board when it comes to agility. Locusts in particular will lose anything between 50% to 90% bonus accel/decel/turnrate/yaw/pitch. They will also lose a significant portion of their offensive quirks.

So, with that out of the way, let's discuss our options as to how to go about skilling your little bugs.

Durability tree? Nope. Just no. The biggest possible gain to your armor is around 5 measly points per component, or about 30 armor in total. This is a saving of approximately 1 whole ton of locust, for a huge cost of nearly half your skill nodes.

There is 8% of heat generation reduction + 10% heat dissipation improvement spread between both firepower and operations. Considering that Hill Climb is also on operations, this may be quite useful a pick for Locusts (and lights in general). 8% heat generation reduction on a 6-spl LCT-1E build is worth about 0.5 heat/sec reduction, which is worth approximately 3.5 non-engine DHS. On a mech with PoorDubs like the Locust, this is especially valuable. This represents a saving of around 3.5 tons of equipment and 10.5 crits, which will not fit on the Locust otherwise.

There has been talk about consumables, but this is largely...ehh...

If you have a load of CBills hanging around, you could technically neglect the operations tree and just load up on coolshots. You won't earn much (or may even lose) CBills every match, but you'll have stupid amounts of damage to dish out without overheating.

Thoughts?

I'm right with you on mobility and ops, especially ops.

We're well aware that mobility is absolutely necessary to Locusting.

I think that ops, where heat management lives, provides the foundation that supports all that firepower tuning. As you observed, the benefits from heat management, on a mech that relies on degraded engine-external DHS, is striking.

I'd probably nuance it to say that there may be less investment necessary due to the desired weapons loadout. So rather than saying mobility -> firepower -> ops -> whatever else (or swapping the order on ops and firepower), I'd say to do the following for best topiary:

1) lots of mobility shrubbery -> 2.0) [consult loadout] -> 2.1) sculpt ops skill shrubbery to support suitably with heat management -> 3) firepower shrubbery as appropriate to tune guns -> 4) info shrubbery for finishing flourishes of effectiveness -> 5) whatever other shrubbery-sculpting decisions tickle one's whimsy. Topiary FTW!

Edited by Virlutris, 16 May 2017 - 08:29 AM.

[Fox With A Shotgun]

Virlutris, on 16 May 2017 - 08:22 AM, said:

I'm right with you on mobility and ops, especially ops.

We're well aware that mobility is absolutely necessary to Locusting.

I think that ops, where heat management lives, provides the foundation that supports all that firepower tuning. As you observed, the benefits from heat management, on a mech that relies on degraded engine-external DHS, is striking.

I'd probably nuance it to say that there may be less investment necessary due to the desired weapons loadout. So rather than saying mobility -> firepower -> ops -> whatever else (or swapping the order on ops and firepower), I'd say to do the following for best topiary:

1) lots of mobility shrubbery -> 2.0) [consult loadout] -> 2.1) sculpt ops skill shrubbery to support suitably with heat management -> 3) firepower shrubbery as appropriate to tune guns -> 4) info shrubbery for finishing flourishes of effectiveness -> 5) whatever other shrubbery-sculpting decisions tickle one's whimsy. Topiary FTW!

We require...A SHRUBBERY!

This skill tree though. My quirks are so many, they fell off the page I can't even tell what I actually have any more on my KFX!

[TheFourthAlly]

I liked the shrubbery references.

[Fox With A Shotgun]

Okay. After toying around with the skill tree some on Locusts, Ravens and Kit Foxes, this is what I've found.

The Survival tree is, for the most part, utter garbage for most lights. MOST lights. There are some lights that have obscene durability buffs, and the survival tree actually amplifies these. Kit Foxes, in particular, can get up to 53 points of armor on each arm (!), and have STs with close to 40 hp struct + 33 armor. This makes them essentially a 45-50 tonner medium in terms of durability, with the survival tree. And as they do not have stellar mobility to begin with and have a hard-locked undersized engine, sinking too much into mobility doesn't give all that much benefit. Panthers would likely benefit from the survival tree as well, seeing as they also have some obscene durability quirks.

If you want to poke a lot, the mobility tree can be pruned somewhat. You still need both sides filled for Speed Tweak for any lights with a big engine, but if all you plan to do is reverse and forward repeatedly with high mounts (Ravens, Locusts w/ ERLL) you can neglect the end-node torso yaw range. Torso pitch for LCT-1V and any others with torso mount ones would do well to pick up torso pitch range. +-20 degrees up/down is not pleasant to use, at all - the least bit of rough ground will see you unable to hit what you see.

Firepower tree...this is where it becomes interesting. Due to the small size of each node's bonuses, you may actually get more value out of sinking points into Sensors instead. Being able to pick out enemy stripped components almost instantly is amazingly good. Radar Dep, Seismic Sensor, Extended Sensor Range and Target Retention / Target Decay will make sure that you never lose track of what you need to hit. That being said, if your weapons generate a vast amount of heat per second (2 ERPPCs come to mind), you will get a lot of utility out of Heat Gen Reduction from the firepower tree. But whether this is worth sinking ~50 node points into is debatable.

Operations. Hill Climb is a real lifesaver for lights. A lot of ramps that fatmechs can't climb, you can! And this means that you can pull a fatmech into a bad position, and run the hell away leaving it stranded in the middle of nowhere. Heat Dissipation is always nice, and heat capacity is always great on mechs with sub-250 engines.

Edited by Fox With A Shotgun, 16 May 2017 - 10:06 PM.