82 replies to this topic

[Vassago Rain]

Egomane, on 19 July 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

What irritates me, is that the commando build FupDup is talking about, can be done. It just wont include the ECM and it needs to shave off half a ton of armor for the full 3 tons of ammo, but it would habe Endo, Ferro and DHS. Now that we have half tons, 2.5 tons of ammo would be a possibility.

If the build should include an ECM it needs to make tonnage free first, but as Endo, Ferro and DHS are already in there, the only other way is to get rid of armor protection or of other equipment. If you get rid of the equipment, you'll almost automatically free up the necessary slots for the ECM. If you reduce the armor, you need critical slots. Reducing the build to SHS would not cripple it much (more), but open up the space needed.

Of course you could also reduce the reactor, but for the small mechs speed is life. In the irrational case where someone wants to do that, you'd run into the critical slot problem FupDup is talking about.

I do not know what FupDup intends to do with a mech that is either not using its strongest equipment (ECM) or freely losing more then a third of its total protection.


On a commando at full armor it's 0.6 tons.

We've been running SRMbomb commandos lately. No ECM, just max out on the SRMs.

Obviously, it's not very good, but neither is a commando with ECM.

[Goose]

Egomane, on 19 July 2014 - 08:05 AM, said:

It seems broken, but it is exactly the same as in the tabletop construction rules. The rules we are using to build our mechs in MWO. There is nothing in there that shouldn't be. There is no cheat or exploit that would make impossible builds possible.

This.

As best as I've ever been able to figure, Teh Devs thought they were simplifying the code by removing "the third type" of heat sink: We have the ones that take up slots and have weight, we have the ones that take up weight but no slots ('cept for the thing about them crit-packing the CT), but the ones that soak up slots without taking weight don't exist here as they do in TT.

A large part of the problem is how none of the "published" build tools ever list the required HS weight next to the engine on their tables: A 220 should read "14 +2" for standard, and "9 +2" for XL.

[FupDup]

Egomane, on 19 July 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

What irritates me, is that the commando build FupDup is talking about, can be done. It just wont include the ECM and it needs to shave off half a ton of armor for the full 3 tons of ammo, but it would habe Endo, Ferro and DHS. Now that we have half tons, 2.5 tons of ammo would be a possibility.

If the build should include an ECM it needs to make tonnage free first, but as Endo, Ferro and DHS are already in there, the only other way is to get rid of armor protection or of other equipment. If you get rid of the equipment, you'll almost automatically free up the necessary slots for the ECM. If you reduce the armor, you need critical slots. Reducing the build to SHS would not cripple it much (more), but open up the space needed.

Of course you could also reduce the reactor, but for the small mechs speed is life. In the irrational case where someone wants to do that, you'd run into the critical slot problem FupDup is talking about.

I do not know what FupDup intends to do with a mech that is either not using its strongest equipment (ECM) or freely losing more then a third of its total protection.


On a commando at full armor it's 0.6 tons.

My memory regarding the example Trollmando build wasn't perfect. After goofing in Smurfys for a minute, here is what I came up with:

COM-2D-Example1

It's 1 ton short because it can't mount the 10th required DHS (1 slot short). Getting a max engine doesn't seem viable for that specific weapon load, but an XL200 is still not bad. XL210 seems like it would only allow for 1 ton of ammo (which isn't viable), or require different weapons entirely (i.e. use normal SRMs instead of Streaks for extra tonnage).

It's a pretty "bleh" build in the end, so I'm fairly certain that the game wouldn't explode if we modified this specific TT construction rule. It wouldn't gain much, but every tiny nudge helps. It also helps most BJs (most variants have 235 engine cap) and Lolcusts.

Edited by FupDup, 19 July 2014 - 06:23 PM.

[Tesunie]

Khobai, on 19 July 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

Except lights are supposed to use all three.

No mech is "suppose" to use any of the upgrades. It's an option. For every option, there are gives and takes. Everything in the game (in any game) is based on this. You want this laser? Well, you have to buy it and be able to equip it. Like this other laser as well? Well, you have to make a choice, which laser do you want. (most games.) Here, you want that laser? Okay, but it's going to cost you crit slots and weight to place it there, and it will produce heat when you use it. You can choose to sacrifice your heat cap to take that laser, and risk overheating. You can take armor or something else away to make room for the laser and sinks to keep it cool. Or may need to even remove something else to open enough crit slots to fit that laser in...

Every upgrade, weapon, and option within the game has set balance restrictions. They are there to help balance the games and all the upgrades. I have many mechs that don't have FF, and some that don't even have DHS! Lights have considerations on weight/heat balancing with their speed. On the opposite end, Assaults tend to have crit slots and heat to consider balancing in their builds. The upgrades are just another choice you need to consider to take. Do you have enough room for them? Do you really need to save that weight? Do you really even need that extra laser if it's going to cost you more heat in a match?

Khobai, on 19 July 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

The problem with that is it buffs every mech, not just the ones that need buffs.

Its the mechs that use sub-250 engines that need the biggest buff.



What are you talking about? Even if the Commando could use all three it would play nothing like the Jenner. Its far more dependent on missile weapons instead of energy weapons. And cant use JJs. And the lack of jumpjets makes it definitively less agile than the Jenner.

Again. The Commando needs a buff. And one of the major reasons it gets screwed is because it cant use a 250 engine and loses 8 crit slots compared to a Jenner between having to take two external DHS and hand actuators. 8 crit slots is a considerable loss even to a light mech, and one the Commando should be compensated for.

The Commando and Locust are not fine. You hardly ever see anyone play them and for good reason.

So... you want to give "free" stuff to some things, but nothing "free" to everyone else. Favoritism much? If one person is going to get it for free, than everyone needs to get it for free. You can't pick and choose things to come and go. If you want those lights to have all those "free" sinks in the engine, then we also would then have to (breaking all lore and relationship with BT at this point) make it so larger engines can't slip in any "extra" sinks inside them...

My Locusts seem to be fine. I can have a lot of fun with them. They are small, fast, and really annoying to people sometimes.

Necroconvict, on 19 July 2014 - 08:52 AM, said:

So now looking at the in game Std 100, that is also a 1 ton engine, with 4 heat sinks.

My Locust (yes, you heard right) with a 100 std engine needs to have 6 external heat sinks on it, not 4... That balances out the 2 tons you were missing I believe? (And no, my Locust does not seem to feel penalized for taking the smaller engine and needing the 6 extra external sinks. I honestly don't need DHS, Oh, and this build... it's not a joke build. It does some surprising things! I've labeled it "Super Locust" as it seems to do so strangely well...)

Khobai, on 19 July 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

TT also doesnt have engine caps so you could put a 250 engine in a Commando if you wanted to and bypass the problem. You could also remove the hand actuators which are pointless on a Commando anyway.

So MWO has added construction rules that create problems for certain mechs.

In TT, Hand Actuators are actually very useful. They can pick stuff up, interact with things, and most importantly... punch things.

Also, in MWO, we have locked in hard points on our mechs. In TT, we wouldn't have any hard points. It's to keep people from power playing even more than we already are seeing... (A balance mechanic PGI placed in, that I feel was very wise of them.)

Sorbic, on 19 July 2014 - 09:09 AM, said:

And I have no idea how they are supposed to work. All I know is that generally more power/energy equals more heat.

I have a vague concept. They are cold fusion reactors that use light hydrogen (a rare substance, ignore some science we have discovered since the creation of BT) to create a reaction similar to what happens in the sun. It's hot, but not radioactive. This reaction always produces the same amount of energy, and I presume that the engine sizes is what determines "how much of that energy is harvested". The reactor will always produce the same heat from mech to mech, no matter the size of the engine itself, thus why all mechs (as far as I understand of course) require at least 10 heat sinks for normal (long term, safe) operations.

FupDup, on 19 July 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

Honestly, the rule that sub-250 engines need to place some sinks externally is pretty stupid and arbitrary. It serves literally no purpose whatsoever other than to penalize players for choosing 20, 25, or sometimes 30 ton mechs. 35 ton lights and above almost never suffer from this, excluding ones with a low engine cap like the BJ (which generally has to use 3 slots on an external dub).

It basically creates a situation where the most optimal mechs are the ones that try to cram in the biggest engine possible, at least for the lower tonnage intervals. Being able to use FF at the same time as Endo doesn't free up a whole lot of weight, but on a light mech every little bit helps. Especially if you're only 20-25 tons.

As an example, the classic ECM Trollmando 2D would be able to use 3 SSRM2 with 3 tons of ammo and a Medium Laser simultaneously, without downgrading to a Small Laser or using SHS (ew!). It's not a massive boost, but it would help. BJs and Lolcusts would benefit as well. Maybe even a few rare Spider builds.


I don't often agree with Khobai, but in this case it's a good idea to change this silly rule. The first 10 sinks you need should be carried inside of the engine, without requiring a critical slot tax. The tonnage would be the same in the end, you'd just save some critslots.

With MWO, speed is far more of a consideration and has more impact than it does in BT and TT. With engine sizes, we not only have internal heat sinks (a reasonable consideration), but also speed (make sense) and twist speed, and now also JJ performance. This makes you gain a lot of added benefits you normally wouldn't see from taking a larger engine.

In BT, there isn't much penalty for taking a smaller engine. In MWO, smaller engines are not as well taken. A certain "meta" has arisen from how engines have been handled in MWO, and it has very little to do with external sinks on smaller engines. Once MWO related twist speed (helps with aiming) with the engine size (and now JJ lift), suddenly having a large engine isn't just effecting your speed, it's effecting your entire combat effectiveness.

Add to that the (non lore abiding) internal DHS providing 2.0 (my real complaint about small engines and fewer internal sinks) cooling, and all external being 1.4, and we get even more problems. Suddenly, you are not just having balance for taking the smaller engines as far as crits and weight savings, you are now taking additional (not lore based) penalties in combat reaction speeds, as well as in cooling (if you have DHS).


As far as engines go and relation to balance mechanics, I feel that a few changes need to be seen.
- If the "internal DHS are 2.0" rule is to be retained, then the first 10 heat sinks need to provide 2.0 cooling, not just the first 10 internal heat sinks. This provides too much of a cooling benefit to larger engines, and truly penalizes smaller engines.
- Twist speed needs to be desynced from engine size and should be based on chassis type/per chassis. This also penalizes smaller engine options, making taking the largest engine the "smart thing to do". There is a reason Atlases are not as slow as they should be...
- Jump Jet thrust should also not be assigned to engine sizes as well. I understand that this probably was a way to reduce (without removing) the jump sniping meta, but when most people are already taking large engines... it's not overly impacting that group as much as people would like to think. Jump Jet thrust should be based on the number of jets you have, and the amount of fuel (time) should remain the same no matter how many jets one has.
(A farther balance of JJs would also to be to have them give you a very fast acceleration up, so a quick tap would send you flying several meters (to the height of a mech maybe even), and then once in the air, you reduce lift (so it becomes a slow down effect, not a continual jump). Right now, the jump jets don't sound anything like the jets I hear about in lore, that slam their pilots into their control chairs when they are used, and tend to blow out legs upon landing if the pilot isn't careful. (Or as what happened in one book, one person panicked while inside a tunnel... slammed his jets on a quick tap, and ran his head into the ceiling, killing himself.) In MWO, I feel like my jets are rising me so slowly... my Quickdraw I can now hold the jets for the whole duration, and I don't even raise up off the ground, or if I somehow manage to, it's so slow that I can let go of the jets and get a clear shot off...)


If we take the suggestions of "free the crits of the 10 needed heatsinks", then to balance that out, we would need to "close the extra space for more heat sinks" in larger engines. I'm sure we will see no complaining about that (please do read with sarcasm)...

[FupDup]

Tesunie, on 19 July 2014 - 07:28 PM, said:

With MWO, speed is far more of a consideration and has more impact than it does in BT and TT. With engine sizes, we not only have internal heat sinks (a reasonable consideration), but also speed (make sense) and twist speed, and now also JJ performance. This makes you gain a lot of added benefits you normally wouldn't see from taking a larger engine.

In BT, there isn't much penalty for taking a smaller engine. In MWO, smaller engines are not as well taken. A certain "meta" has arisen from how engines have been handled in MWO, and it has very little to do with external sinks on smaller engines. Once MWO related twist speed (helps with aiming) with the engine size (and now JJ lift), suddenly having a large engine isn't just effecting your speed, it's effecting your entire combat effectiveness.

Add to that the (non lore abiding) internal DHS providing 2.0 (my real complaint about small engines and fewer internal sinks) cooling, and all external being 1.4, and we get even more problems. Suddenly, you are not just having balance for taking the smaller engines as far as crits and weight savings, you are now taking additional (not lore based) penalties in combat reaction speeds, as well as in cooling (if you have DHS).

Bigger engines also help turning speed and arm swing speed, as per Smurfys.

As for TT, having a mech with a sub 250 engine was still a less optimal way to build a robot than having 250+ rated engines. The critslot savings often let you add more tech upgrades, which could end up counteracting the weight requirements of the larger engine in the first place.

Tesunie, on 19 July 2014 - 07:28 PM, said:

As far as engines go and relation to balance mechanics, I feel that a few changes need to be seen.
- If the "internal DHS are 2.0" rule is to be retained, then the first 10 heat sinks need to provide 2.0 cooling, not just the first 10 internal heat sinks. This provides too much of a cooling benefit to larger engines, and truly penalizes smaller engines.
- Twist speed needs to be desynced from engine size and should be based on chassis type/per chassis. This also penalizes smaller engine options, making taking the largest engine the "smart thing to do". There is a reason Atlases are not as slow as they should be...
- Jump Jet thrust should also not be assigned to engine sizes as well. I understand that this probably was a way to reduce (without removing) the jump sniping meta, but when most people are already taking large engines... it's not overly impacting that group as much as people would like to think. Jump Jet thrust should be based on the number of jets you have, and the amount of fuel (time) should remain the same no matter how many jets one has.
(A farther balance of JJs would also to be to have them give you a very fast acceleration up, so a quick tap would send you flying several meters (to the height of a mech maybe even), and then once in the air, you reduce lift (so it becomes a slow down effect, not a continual jump). Right now, the jump jets don't sound anything like the jets I hear about in lore, that slam their pilots into their control chairs when they are used, and tend to blow out legs upon landing if the pilot isn't careful. (Or as what happened in one book, one person panicked while inside a tunnel... slammed his jets on a quick tap, and ran his head into the ceiling, killing himself.) In MWO, I feel like my jets are rising me so slowly... my Quickdraw I can now hold the jets for the whole duration, and I don't even raise up off the ground, or if I somehow manage to, it's so slow that I can let go of the jets and get a clear shot off...)

Those specific suggestions are good, but they aren't mutually exclusive with having the first 10 base sinks being located inside the engine...

Tesunie, on 19 July 2014 - 07:28 PM, said:

If we take the suggestions of "free the crits of the 10 needed heatsinks", then to balance that out, we would need to "close the extra space for more heat sinks" in larger engines. I'm sure we will see no complaining about that (please do read with sarcasm)...

I'm not sure what you're basing that assumption off of. Having the optional bonus slots on larger engines is a nice quirk of them, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the base 10 required sinks on all engines.

Edited by FupDup, 19 July 2014 - 07:39 PM.

[Tesunie]

FupDup, on 19 July 2014 - 07:38 PM, said:

I'm not sure what you're basing that assumption off of. Having the optional bonus slots on larger engines is a nice quirk of them, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the base 10 required sinks on all engines.

Basically, if you gain more in engine sink slots for having a larger engine, then it only makes sense that the smaller the engine goes, the less space for sinks become. If you want to always have "10 sinks in the engine" even on the smaller engines, then we can't also have "extra space for additional sinks" in the larger engines, as it's this same balance mechanic that is giving you more sink space, as it is that rule which is forcing sinks outside the engine. These two pieces are connected by the same construction rules.

All engines require 10 heat sinks just for proper cooling of the mech's fusion reactor. Engine size does not determine how much cooling the fusion reactor is going to need itself. The engine only determines how much of the reactor's strength is converted over to usable energy. Just like how engines always need oil and cooling systems to run properly, so does your mech require 10 heat sinks to run properly for average operations. (And, just like if you blow a hole in your oil pan during operation, you can continue to run your car, same goes when a 10-9 or more required heat sink is destroyed and your mech can continue to fucntion. Trust me on this one. I've actually blown a nice little hole in my oil pan and continued to drive my car for several additional miles before truly having a problem... It's not pretty, but you can do it...)

As far as "taking a smaller engine, even in TT...", cost. Just like why we have expensive and cheap cars, there are expensive (all the bells and whistles, larger engines, upgrades) mechs, and there are cheap (no upgrades, an engine large enough for it to perform a role, etc) mechs. In BT, there is an economy. Not everyone can afford to get upgraded (rare and expensive tech) mechs. Almost no one can afford to even customize their mechs. In MWO, we live like princes and princesses within BT, having access to the best tech and customizing abilities in all the Inner Sphere (and Clan space even now). MWO is based on this lore. If you remove the mech construction rules (among many other things), you might as well just start calling this "some mecha game" instead of "Mechwarrior". As much as people say "it's a game", it's not just any game, it is a "mechwarrior" game, and people who are loyal to "mechwarrior" and "battletech" expect the game to follow certain lore and basic concepts. 10 required sinks are just one of the many concepts and rules that this lore happens to follow.


Edit: Some grammar and clarifications.

Edited by Tesunie, 19 July 2014 - 07:55 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

If the developers were requiring us to run 10 heatsinks for "heat management" reasons, then players with double heatsinks could drop with 5 engine heatsinks and they would meet the Developers' requirements for "minimum heat dissipation" because 5 engine DHS = 10 SHS.

The real reason we have the 10 heatsink rule is because there are Developers and franchise Fanatics (read: fans) who believe TableTop rules should be preserved as much as possible for this video game.

[FupDup]

Tesunie, on 19 July 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:

Basically, if you gain more in engine sink slots for having a larger engine, then it only makes sense that the smaller the engine goes, the less space for sinks become. If you want to always have "10 sinks in the engine" even on the smaller engines, then we can't also have "extra space for additional sinks" in the larger engines, as it's this same balance mechanic that is giving you more sink space, as it is that is forcing sinks outside the engine. These two pieces are connected by the same construction rules.

Having some of the 10 required base sinks needing to be mounted outside isn't really a "balance" mechanic. I strongly doubt that smaller engines would suddenly be overpowered if I got my wish fulfilled. Would a Lolcust with the same critical slot capacity as a Jenner really be that bad for the game? I don't think the Lolcust is so overpowered that it somehow needs 9-12 fewer critslots for building than a Jenner/Firestarter/Raven gets to have.

And yes, we can in fact have space for optional extra sinks in the larger engines while still granting my wish, because those extra sink slots in the bigger engines are simply a bonus rather than a requirement. You can use them (which most people do), or you might not use them. But for the initial 10 sinks that all mechs need, you don't really have a choice.

Those bonus optional slots are actually needed for a lot of builds to function in the game, primarily heavy and assault energy boats. Cramming in more and moar DHS is the bottleneck they face for damage output, so they need all the slots they can get. Removing the bonus slots would giganerf a whole lot of innocent builds.

My little complaint about the 10 base sinks being all in the engine, however, would not invalidate or nerf any builds. It would be a small-moderate buff for certain mechs that can't mount 250+ engines due to their engine limits and/or overall tonnage. Nobody gets hurt in the process.

Tesunie, on 19 July 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:

All engines require 10 heat sinks just for proper cooling of the mech's fusion reactor. Engine size does not determine how much cooling the fusion reactor is going to need itself. The engine only determines how much of the reactor's strength is converted over to usable energy. Just like how engines always need oil and cooling systems to run properly, so does your mech require 10 heat sinks to run properly for average operations. (And, just like if you blow a hole in your oil pan during operation, you can continue to run your car, same goes when a 10-9 or more required heat sink is destroyed and your mech can continue to fucntion. Trust me on this one. I've actually blown a nice little hole in my oil pan and continued to drive my car for several additional miles before truly having a problem... It's nor pretty, but you can do it...)

Hence why I'm not asking for the removal of the base 10 rule, I just want the base 10 to be "fair" across the board.

Tesunie, on 19 July 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:

As far as "taking a smaller engine, even in TT...", cost. Just like why we have expensive and cheap cars, there are expensive (all the bells and whistles, larger engines, upgrades) mechs, and there are cheap (no upgrades, an engine large enough for it to perform a role, etc) mechs. In BT, there is an economy. Not everyone can afford to get upgraded (rare and expensive tech) mechs. Almost no one can afford to even customize their mechs. In MWO, we live like princes and princesses within BT, having access to the best tech and customizing abilities in all the Inner Sphere (and Clan space even now). MWO is based on this lore. If you remove the mech construction rules (among many other things), you might as well just start calling this "some mecha game" instead of "Mechwarrior". As much as people say "it's a game", it's not just any game, it is a "mechwarrior" game, and people who are loyal to "mechwarrior" and "battletech" expect the game to follow certain lore and basic concepts. 10 required sinks are just one of the many concepts and rules that this lore happens to follow.

This is a fairly nitpicky piece of lore that we're arguing about. I'm not asking for something crazy like making the House Steiner logo red instead of blue, or making Kerensky rise from the dead as a zombie, or for all of the successor states to suddenly become friends and forget that they hate each other, or removing the House Kurita faction entirely.

Changes like those I just listed in the previous sentence would be simply insane...but I'm not asking for bonkers things like those up above. I'm pretty sure that when somebody says the word "Battletech," the first thing you think of is something other than the topic of this thread. Sub-250 engines being "taxed" of critslots is not an integral part of Battletech's personality/mojo. It's just a random board game rule that FASA pulled out of their lower rear center torso for some reason.

It would be similar to, say, giving a Medium Pulse Laser slightly more damage than TT or giving a Machine Gun a little bit more range. The overall identity isn't really impacted by such changes. Now, if we made the WoB launch their Jihad in 3050 or stuff like that, then yeah that would really change the face/identity of the game. But this silly heatsink rule? Nah.

---

As for economy, that won't really work for a game like this. That stuff is best left to things like RTS games where you start each match with a specific pool of resources, and need to go harvest more, and get reset after each match. If you can accumulate resources over multiple matches, having in-game performance tied to spacebucks can end badly. It would basically be a sort of arm's race to stockpile as much spacebucks as you could and avoid doing things that cost money (i.e. using ammo based weapons, exposing yourself to enemy fire, etc.).

Premium time, hero mechs, and C-Bill packages for MC don't help the issue. It could actually create a "mild P2W" situation if C-Bills were about in-game performance more than convenience of unlocking content slightly earlier.

[Tesunie]

FupDup, on 19 July 2014 - 08:13 PM, said:

Having some of the 10 required base sinks needing to be mounted outside isn't really a "balance" mechanic. I strongly doubt that smaller engines would suddenly be overpowered if I got my wish fulfilled. Would a Lolcust with the same critical slot capacity as a Jenner really be that bad for the game? I don't think the Lolcust is so overpowered that it somehow needs 9-12 fewer critslots for building than a Jenner/Firestarter/Raven gets to have.

And yes, we can in fact have space for optional extra sinks in the larger engines while still granting my wish, because those extra sink slots in the bigger engines are simply a bonus rather than a requirement. You can use them (which most people do), or you might not use them. But for the initial 10 sinks that all mechs need, you don't really have a choice.

Those bonus optional slots are actually needed for a lot of builds to function in the game, primarily heavy and assault energy boats. Cramming in more and moar DHS is the bottleneck they face for damage output, so they need all the slots they can get. Removing the bonus slots would giganerf a whole lot of innocent builds.

My little complaint about the 10 base sinks being all in the engine, however, would not invalidate or nerf any builds. It would be a small-moderate buff for certain mechs that can't mount 250+ engines due to their engine limits and/or overall tonnage. Nobody gets hurt in the process.

If we get "10 internal heat sinks, no matter engine size", then explain to me why larger engines "have more space inside"? The larger the engine, the more space it has inside. The smaller the engine, the less space to the point where operational sinks for the engine can no longer fit inside the engine itself. These two rule run off the same rule mechanic. You really can't have one without effecting the other. They each are a cause from the same base construction rules. On this one here, I have to say I don't make the rules, but we all have to obey those rules if we wish to play this game.

FupDup, on 19 July 2014 - 08:13 PM, said:

Hence why I'm not asking for the removal of the base 10 rule, I just want the base 10 to be "fair" across the board.

But (maybe not you) most people I hear who complain about this rule state that it's the "extra tonnage" of the sinks that is unfair to those mechs that take those smaller engines, as well as the extra crit spaces. Of course, if you need more crit spaces, one can always choose not to upgrade to FF, providing 14 additional crit slots for one to work with, at the cost of less than a ton of weight savings...

FupDup, on 19 July 2014 - 08:13 PM, said:

Changes like those I just listed in the previous sentence would be simply insane...but I'm not asking for bonkers things like those up above. I'm pretty sure that when somebody says the word "Battletech," the first thing you think of is something other than the topic of this thread. Sub-250 engines being "taxed" of critslots is not an integral part of Battletech's personality/mojo. It's just a random board game rule that FASA pulled out of their lower rear center torso for some reason.


As for economy, that won't really work for a game like this. That stuff is best left to things like RTS games where you start each match with a specific pool of resources, and need to go harvest more, and get reset after each match. If you can accumulate resources over multiple matches, having in-game performance tied to spacebucks can end badly. It would basically be a sort of arm's race to stockpile as much spacebucks as you could and avoid doing things that cost money (i.e. using ammo based weapons, exposing yourself to enemy fire, etc.).

Why do people always throw around the word "tax" when describing something they don't like/want out of the game? I have heard that term refereed to about the DHS upgrade. It's the "DHS Tax". Why they call it a "tax"? Because they don't want to have to pay for those DHS and want them to come free, even though some people (such as crazy old me) actually use SHS, and some other people (like me) wish to even play within a stock mech, with no alterations.

It's not really a tax. It's a mechanic devised into the system. It is a part of the system. It's one of the (even though small and not often thought of) parts of lore of Battletech. You might not think it is that big of a deal, but you change that and suddenly a lot of things change. If you remove that rule completely (about engine size and sink space inside the engine), then you would have to then also force extra sinks people place into larger engines outside those engines, as those extra crit spaces are given to players because of the very same rule that can lead to some of the 10 required sinks to be left outside the engine. They are very much the same rule providing both the boon, and the (slight in my opinion) penalty. (Trust me, I do get what you are saying, and understand. I just don't see the need to really have to change this rule, as it's a mechanic of the game and doesn't seem to really provide problems for most players.)


R&R was, in my opinion of course, a good mechanic in the game. It made the game feel more like BT/MW, and like I was in a slightly more persistent world. However, I do also feel that the way it was implemented was incorrect and could have been done in a much better manner than it was done. I'm hoping we can see some kind of "economy" (I don't know how, nor have any concepts on how this could be achieved at this time) with CW. Something to make the game seem more real, and more like the many books I have read about BT over the years. I want to see a strong reason to encourage people to use Std engines, std structure. I want to see people pick FF (cheaper to get/fix/use) over Endo, and have a reason for it even. I wish to have reasons for people to not bring in 6-12 tons of ammo for their weapons (when often times 3-4 tons will last them most average matches with that payload). However, I'm not sure how any of this could properly, and in a balanced and fair manner, be implemented so as to not harm well played tactics (such as taking hits to your mech protecting someone else, bringing in ammo for your LRM based mech, etc).

Just because I don't have any "perfect" concept for such features doesn't mean I don't want them there, or that (if properly done) it might not be good for the game even if not even add in a whole nother level of gaming and strategy to the game. I wish we could make this game feel and work similar to BT lore, as far as costs, maintenance, etc. I don't want to discourage play styles either though (high ammo builds, tanking damage, smart/courageous game play, self sacrifice, etc), nor do I want people to be able to go into debt (even though it could happen in lore, this is a game after all).

(Of course, I believe that medium mechs really lost their role in the game once R&R was removed, as one of their best advantages, even in lore, was that they were cheap to field, could preform a lot of different roles, and were cost effective.)


Of course, I'm not saying I have all the answers to everything. But there are some things I'd wish to just leave alone, as if you change one part of it (for this discussion relevance), you will have to change all parts that the rule effect for it to be fair to everyone.

[FupDup]

Tesunie, on 19 July 2014 - 08:43 PM, said:

If we get "10 internal heat sinks, no matter engine size", then explain to me why larger engines "have more space inside"? The larger the engine, the more space it has inside. The smaller the engine, the less space to the point where operational sinks for the engine can no longer fit inside the engine itself. These two rule run off the same rule mechanic. You really can't have one without effecting the other. They each are a cause from the same base construction rules. On this one here, I have to say I don't make the rules, but we all have to obey those rules if we wish to play this game.

I'm still not seeing how my suggestion necessitates removing the bonus from larger engines. We are playing a vidyagame. We can code it however we wish to. It is completely within our coding ability to fulfill my nagging wish here, and I might even be able to do it myself if somebody gave me a look at this game's engine values in an XML file.

There is no "requirement" to change the 275+ engines. Maybe it might seem awkward/weird in some way, but we would not "need" to remove the bonus slots. We don't need some kind of quasi-realism explanation for this, because this game only exists for entertainment purposes. We're fighting giant space robots across the galaxy in one of the most unrealistic IPs out there.

Removing the bonus slots of engines 275+ doesn't provide any help to the game, and would in fact be detrimental in most cases (kills a LOT of loadouts). My little nitpicky change, however, would give a small/modest buff to various chassis. It wouldn't suddenly make them great, but it would assist them, and slightly reduce their handicap.


That aside, the trend for bigger gets more slots would still exist (i.e XL400 gets 6 bonus slots, XL350 gets only 4 bonus slots), it would just start at a higher point rather than beginning at the very bottom...

Tesunie, on 19 July 2014 - 08:43 PM, said:

But (maybe not you) most people I hear who complain about this rule state that it's the "extra tonnage" of the sinks that is unfair to those mechs that take those smaller engines, as well as the extra crit spaces. Of course, if you need more crit spaces, one can always choose not to upgrade to FF, providing 14 additional crit slots for one to work with, at the cost of less than a ton of weight savings...

The extra tonnage is a misconception some people make, because MWO subtracts the weight of the required external sinks from the engine (which would normally be counted in the engine's weight for TT). The "ghost tonnage" of an XL235, for example, is 11.5 tons, because you need to mount an extra sink (cuz it only comes with 9 inside of it). The extra slot consumption, however, is very real. A Firestarter only needs to spend 12 slots on his XL engine, but the lowly Lolcust has to spend 21-24 slots (depending on the rating) on his own engine. So not only does he get way superior armor and firepower, but now he also gets more critslots for building, while going a similar speed.

Sure, you can downgrade to FF, but now explain why the 30-35 ton lights get a free pass...and almost every other mech out there. It targets a handful of highly specific mechs/loadouts that don't really need to be targeted.

Tesunie, on 19 July 2014 - 08:43 PM, said:

Why do people always throw around the word "tax" when describing something they don't like/want out of the game? I have heard that term refereed to about the DHS upgrade. It's the "DHS Tax". Why they call it a "tax"? Because they don't want to have to pay for those DHS and want them to come free, even though some people (such as crazy old me) actually use SHS, and some other people (like me) wish to even play within a stock mech, with no alterations.

It's not really a tax. It's a mechanic devised into the system. It is a part of the system. It's one of the (even though small and not often thought of) parts of lore of Battletech. You might not think it is that big of a deal, but you change that and suddenly a lot of things change. If you remove that rule completely (about engine size and sink space inside the engine), then you would have to then also force extra sinks people place into larger engines outside those engines, as those extra crit spaces are given to players because of the very same rule that can lead to some of the 10 required sinks to be left outside the engine. They are very much the same rule providing both the boon, and the (slight in my opinion) penalty. (Trust me, I do get what you are saying, and understand. I just don't see the need to really have to change this rule, as it's a mechanic of the game and doesn't seem to really provide problems for most players.)

For dubs, it's referred to as a tax because you'll get crushed by nearly anyone in the game unless you're playing in a custom match with stock mechs only (or 3025 restricted tech, which is probably less common). Your damage output and sustainability simply can't compare outside of things like Gauss Rifle builds. Let's not derail this thread, though...

Yes, the external base sinks are a "part of the system," that doesn't make it a good part. The only reason it's here is literally "because of reasons." That's about it. Or, I guess, it might be here to quell the potential Locust meta if they didn't need to spend twice the critslots on an engine as a Jenner does...

The only tangible change would be some new loadout options on certain mechs (currently, the ones who benefit are Lolcusts, Commandos, and most Blackjacks, with potentially more mechs in the future to benefit). It's a nitpick. It doesn't form BT's identity the way things like multiple hit locations, the various factions and their attitudes/motivations, artwork, characters, locations, events, etc. etc. It's fairly similar to giving a Large Pulse Laser a little less heat or increasing the damage on an LRM missile.

Tesunie, on 19 July 2014 - 08:43 PM, said:

-RnR snip-

Of course, I'm not saying I have all the answers to everything. But there are some things I'd wish to just leave alone, as if you change one part of it (for this discussion relevance), you will have to change all parts that the rule effect for it to be fair to everyone.

I snipped out RnR to avoid a potential thread derailment if the discussion continued. Agree to disagree, etc. w/e.

See earlier for the response to "changing one part = gotta change all the parts."

Edited by FupDup, 19 July 2014 - 09:17 PM.

[Zordicron]

I admit I skipped a page, so maybe someone brought this up already....

Regarding engines and table top vs MWO, pretty sure in TT, engine size was restricted based on what stock engine was in mech. For instance, an Atlas had 300 rating, if you wanted to switch it, you had to go to a 200 or a 400.

MWO, they decided this was too brutal for customization, so they allowed people to put whatever the frick they felt like in, but then stuck with the heatsink rule of 10 and mod the tonnage to include gyro etc. So while they stuck with some rules, they took some pretty major liberty with engine rule in general already.

People need to realize, if they dont use TT as a basic ruleset to follow, it wont be battletech. If it's not battletech, then its just stompy robots. I want battletech, but I accept liberties taken to conform to the mostly FPS style play. The devs took liberties with lasers and ballistics, heat cap and dissipation, single slug autocannons, and most of those thigs people that have played previous PC titles will agree have been for the worse for balance and basic game mechanics. Those are different topics for another thread, but I use it to show how taking massive liberty with engines could very well end up creating balance issues, besides moving MWO farther from battletech as a whole.

I dont mind the rules they use. As for mechs like urban mech, Now that we have clans as an example, they could pretty well just make fixed equipment for the thing so it isnt a rule breaker( game rules or whatever) and if it is detrimental to the chassis to much, give it quirks to make up for it some. Make variants with fixed stuff, and then make them crazy cheap, or better yet release them as gifts a few months apart or whatever as promo things during weekend events. Earn an Urbie as it were.

[Pjwned]

Better yet just lower the minimum heat sinks to 8 if there must be a minimum, hell I would prefer it if there was no minimum so that mechs like blackjacks and locusts don't get screwed.

[FupDup]

Pjwned, on 19 July 2014 - 10:03 PM, said:

Better yet just lower the minimum heat sinks to 8 if there must be a minimum, hell I would prefer it if there was no minimum so that mechs like blackjacks and locusts don't get screwed.

That doesn't do much for the variants that rely on heat-dependent weaponry, though, which means most BJs (ACs are too heavy to be practical on such a mech) and most Lolcust variants (excludes the MG variant). Maybe a few Commando builds, too. Quite often (i.e. most of the time) you end up needing all 10 of those minimum sinks.

Edited by FupDup, 19 July 2014 - 10:15 PM.

[Kadreal]

I donno, I kinda think the locust and commando could benefit greatly from not needing to tack on, what are in many cases, useless heatsinks. People have been crying about how they are underpowered vs the big boys, this seems like a decent way to give them a little extra love.

[1453 R]

Lordamighty...

Fup, Tes...it should be equally clear to both of you by now that FuPDup doesn't give the remotest frog about BT lore and Tesunie very much does.

Fup, you're not going to convince someone who drops into regular matches with a stock off-variant Hunchback that discarding more TT rules than we've already discarded is a good idea. Tesunie does not care about balance or performance or equality of customization. We'd never see him in the regular queue again if they added a public stock queue. You're not winning this one, man - you can't convince someone to stop caring about the lore.

Same to you, Tesunie. If there's an option to make 'Mech A, and then make 'Mech B except with extra armor and firepower at no loss of speed, agility, or other such movement profile performance, the vast majority of players are going to kick 'Mech A off a cliff. Fragging around with engine heat sink requirements is dicey, but the required external DHS inflict severe penalties on the Locust, Commando, and Blackjack that other 'Mechs get to work around without any issues. there's no real reason to play most Commandos over things like Firestarters or Jenners. You may feel like those penalties are justified and don't impact the capabilities of the chassis - but you also pilot a stock Lurmback. Clearly you don't care about winning games

Spike, Timmy, go and play your games and have fun. Neither of you's going to convince the other to shut up already.

[Pjwned]

FupDup, on 19 July 2014 - 10:15 PM, said:

That doesn't do much for the variants that rely on heat-dependent weaponry, though, which means most BJs (ACs are too heavy to be practical on such a mech) and most Lolcust variants (excludes the MG variant). Maybe a few Commando builds, too. Quite often (i.e. most of the time) you end up needing all 10 of those minimum sinks.

Well, I read through the thread a little bit and saw your idea of each engine having 10 heatsinks, and the way I see it there are 2 possible problems regarding tonnage:

• Engines lower than 250 rating get additional heat sinks up to 10 for free, this seems rather broken and as far as I understand I don't believe this is the idea for exactly that reason.
  
• Engines lower than 250 rating are forced with additional heat sinks up to 10 and their tonnage is raised accordingly, meaning that the tonnage situation remains the same as it is now if you have a <250 engine but crit slots are significantly freed up.

The problem with #2 is that it doesn't address the mechs that really do not need 10 heat sinks for heat management (and it's not just lighter mechs either, here is an example of a fairly solid build that absolutely does not need 10 heat sinks) and could really use that freed up tonnage for more weapons & ammo or a (slightly) bigger engine (but still under 250) or something like that. I understand the desire to free up the crit slot burden on mechs like locusts, blackjacks, commandos, etc. but it seems like that still leaves other mechs in the dust if they really don't need 10 heatsinks but can't launch without those 10.

Edited by Pjwned, 19 July 2014 - 11:20 PM.

[FupDup]

1453 R, on 19 July 2014 - 11:08 PM, said:

Lordamighty...

Fup, Tes...it should be equally clear to both of you by now that FuPDup doesn't give the remotest frog about BT lore and Tesunie very much does.

Fup, you're not going to convince someone who drops into regular matches with a stock off-variant Hunchback that discarding more TT rules than we've already discarded is a good idea. Tesunie does not care about balance or performance or equality of customization. We'd never see him in the regular queue again if they added a public stock queue. You're not winning this one, man - you can't convince someone to stop caring about the lore.

Same to you, Tesunie. If there's an option to make 'Mech A, and then make 'Mech B except with extra armor and firepower at no loss of speed, agility, or other such movement profile performance, the vast majority of players are going to kick 'Mech A off a cliff. Fragging around with engine heat sink requirements is dicey, but the required external DHS inflict severe penalties on the Locust, Commando, and Blackjack that other 'Mechs get to work around without any issues. there's no real reason to play most Commandos over things like Firestarters or Jenners. You may feel like those penalties are justified and don't impact the capabilities of the chassis - but you also pilot a stock Lurmback. Clearly you don't care about winning games

Spike, Timmy, go and play your games and have fun. Neither of you's going to convince the other to shut up already.

But this is teh internetz! I must continue my forum warfare across teh landz!





PS: I'm not sure I can really be called a full out Spike, because I use builds that I consider to be non-optimal pretty much constantly. However, I don't try to convince myself into thinking that they're amazing configs, because they often are not (although sometimes I find a gem...).

[FupDup]

Pjwned, on 19 July 2014 - 11:14 PM, said:

Well, I read through the thread a little bit and saw your idea of each engine having 10 heatsinks, and the way I see it there are 2 possible problems regarding tonnage:

• Engines lower than 250 rating get additional heat sinks up to 10 for free, this seems rather broken and as far as I understand I don't believe this is the idea for exactly that reason.
  
• Engines lower than 250 rating are forced with additional heat sinks up to 10 and their tonnage is raised accordingly, meaning that the tonnage situation remains the same as it is now if you have a <250 engine but crit slots are significantly freed up.

The problem with #2 is that it doesn't address the mechs that really do not need 10 heat sinks for heat management (and it's not just lighter mechs either, here is an example of a fairly solid build that absolutely does not need 10 heat sinks) and could really use that freed up tonnage for more weapons & ammo or a bigger engine or something like that. I understand the desire to free up the crit slot burden on mechs like locusts, blackjacks, commandos, etc. but it seems like that still leaves other mechs in the dust if they really don't need 10 heatsinks but can't launch without those 10.

I see your point with the Jager example build...how about a compromise?

Basically, the way the compromise would work is that you could run with fewer than 10 base sinks, and engines that don't get all 10 by default would simply have engine slots to hold any "missing" sinks. As an example, the STD225 in your Jager build would have 9 sinks built in, and you'd get 1 bonus slot to use *if you wanted to.* If you chose to use that slot, you'd get a total of 10 sinks inside your engine. The XL190 used by a Lolcust would get 3 slots to put sinks in (7 sinks built in by default), meaning the engine could hold a total of 10 if you wanted to spend that tonnage.

This lets me satisfy my critslot obsession, while also letting you have the option to drop with fewer than 10 sinks. (Although personally I don't mind the 10 requirement, I just mind where they need to be allocated with smaller engines...).

Edited by FupDup, 19 July 2014 - 11:26 PM.

[Pjwned]

FupDup, on 19 July 2014 - 11:21 PM, said:

I see your point with the Jager example build...how about a compromise?

Basically, the way the compromise would work is that you could run with fewer than 10 base sinks, and engines that don't get all 10 by default would simply have engine slots to hold any "missing" sinks. As an example, the STD225 in your Jager build would have 9 sinks built in, and you'd get 1 bonus slot to use *if you wanted to.* If you chose to use that slot, you'd get a total of 10 sinks inside your engine. The XL190 used by a Lolcust would get 3 slots to put sinks in (7 sinks built in by default), meaning the engine could hold a total of 10 if you wanted to spend that tonnage.

This lets me satisfy my critslot obsession, while also letting you have the option to drop with fewer than 10 sinks. (Although personally I don't mind the 10 requirement, I just mind where they need to be allocated with smaller engines...).

That's pretty much exactly the sort of compromise I had in mind actually (EDIT: meant to clarify this) although that could be seen as somewhat "unfair" because you have that sort of option with a smaller engine but not with a bigger engine, and maybe somebody would want less than 10 heat sinks in a XL 255 or something like that. Personally I think that argument might be stretching things a little bit, but it might hold some merit if you wanted to have a build like this and have a STD 270 with 9 heat sinks or something like that.

Edited by Pjwned, 19 July 2014 - 11:48 PM.

[SolasTau]

So, much like I am prone to doing in an actual match, I'm going to wander out into the open and do something stupid.

I was *under the impression* that the stock 10 heat sinks were part and parcel of the engines actual design *regardless* of actual tonnage involved, meaning that every fusion engine is constructed to reduce at least 10 heat (20 if DHS). I always took it less as actual heat sinks and more as heat shielding and venting rating applied to all engines. I will FULLY own that I play a little fast and loose with the rules for reasons Fupdup mentioned (spirit of the rules/core identity vs letter of the rules) and because it made many more configurations viable. Yes, that means they indeed ARE magical heat sinks. I also threw out the Max Tech rules because they were a significant speed bump for people taking turns.

I agree with the premise here, but y'know, I have that whole other nonsense in here about heat not making sense in MWO vs TT ANYWAYS, so there's that.