69 replies to this topic

[Savage Wolf]

Egomane, on 17 September 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

No, they used the crit slots before as well. Please see my example calculation above.

Hmm... so that's how they got around that obstacle. Alright the stock builds are still there then. But they still changed the construction rules.

And still, there have been no arguments against the change based on balance. I've only seen people against the rule change simply because it's a rule change. Simply because that's how TT did it. And no one is disputing that it would actually help balance.

[M0rpHeu5]

Guys please stop worshiping the TT, keep an open mind. Also 5 double hs should be enough TTwise too, right?

[Egomane]

Savage Wolf, on 17 September 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

Hmm... so that's how they got around that obstacle. Alright the stock builds are still there then. But they still changed the construction rules.

And still, there have been no arguments against the change based on balance. I've only seen people against the rule change simply because it's a rule change. Simply because that's how TT did it. And no one is disputing that it would actually help balance.

You really need to read the posts in this thread more carefully. PGI did not change the construction rules. They only use another way to calculate.

And I did say that the light mechs do not need a boost like that.

M0rpHeu5, on 17 September 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

Guys please stop worshiping the TT, keep an open mind. Also 5 double hs should be enough TTwise too, right?

Wrong! The 10 heatsink requirement doesn't care about what type of heatsinks you mount. It's not about the amount of heat they can absorb.

And my mind is open. I do not like attempts to circumvent an intended limitation, just because something is worded, or in this case calculated, differently. In roleplaying, we call players that try this, to gain an advantage, munchkins.

Edited by Egomane, 17 September 2014 - 01:02 PM.

[Thorn Hallis]

Bront, on 17 September 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

In TT, you have to distribute the HS in the mech, but they weigh nothing because they came with the engine. In MWO, they have weight, but don't come with the engine weight.

Maybe I understand you wrong, but the 10 engine heatsinks where "in" the engine. No extra critslots were used for them.

[Bront]

Thorn Hallis, on 17 September 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

Maybe I understand you wrong, but the 10 engine heatsinks where "in" the engine. No extra critslots were used for them.

No, the same layout rules were used in TT. (I wasn't aware of that either till MWO, but it is the case). So a 150 engine in TT comes with 10 HS, only 6 are in the engine, and the other 4 need to be placed somewhere on the mech.

[Savage Wolf]

Egomane, on 17 September 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

You really need to read the posts in this thread more carefully. PGI did not change the construction rules. They only use another way to calculate.

Which in itself is a change to the construction rules. You even listed the differences. How could there be differences without change! Not having engines lower than 100 is a change to the construction rules. Changing the effectiveness of double heat sinks is a change. And the change to the internal heatsinks of the engine was needed for the change of the double heat sinks. MWO's construction rules have plenty of changes.
And even if they didn't, why shouldn't they if it improves balance?

Egomane, on 17 September 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

And I did say that the light mechs do not need a boost like that.

First of, it doesn't boost all light mechs. Most would stay the same, especially the ones that people are already using. The ones that would benefit of this change is the ones that currently isn't worth using. And really, if you need come up with any argument against this proposal then here is where it actually matters. It's not important what TT did or didn't do, what matters is balance and what that balance is in MWO's context.

Egomane, on 17 September 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

Wrong! The 10 heatsink requirement doesn't care about what type of heatsinks you mount. It's not about the amount of heat they can absorb.

But that contradicts the lore explination of why the heatsinks are there in the first place! Which is further contradicted by the fact that the heat system doesn't even work that way in MWO!

Egomane, on 17 September 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

And my mind is open. I do not like attempts to circumvent an intended limitation, just because something is worded, or in this case calculated, differently. In roleplaying, we call players that try this, to gain an advantage, munchkins.

Yes, but an intended limitation has an intent behind it. In TT is was balance. But what is it in MWO, because it doesn't really provide balance? And we would not be circumventing it, we would be removing it.
And munchkins in MWO would be people using meta builds. I hardly believe that removing this limitation would create new meta builds. You are welcome to show them to me. Until then no munchkin cares the slightest bit about this rule.

[Leopardao]

For the record PGI implemented the current MWO design because it was the best way to mimic the design rules within the limitations of the system being used.

As for the game function of the 10 heatsinks, these heatsinks represent the engines emergency coolant factor in case of engine damage. If PGI decides to allow critical hits to the engine, the first hit causes the engine to generate 5 heat over 10 secs (5 heatsinks of cooling) and the second hit causes the engine to generate 10 heat over 10 secs (10 heatsinks of cooling). The third hit caused the engine to shutdown...or go nova...

Edited by Leopardao, 18 September 2014 - 01:21 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Leopardao, on 18 September 2014 - 01:20 AM, said:

For the record PGI implemented the current MWO design because it was the best way to mimic the design rules within the limitations of the system being used.

As for the game function of the 10 heatsinks, these heatsinks represent the engines emergency coolant factor in case of engine damage. If PGI decides to allow critical hits to the engine, the first hit causes the engine to generate 5 heat over 10 secs (5 heatsinks of cooling) and the second hit causes the engine to generate 10 heat over 10 secs (10 heatsinks of cooling). The third hit caused the engine to shutdown...or go nova...

We are all well aware of how TT did things as well as the changes made in MWO to immitate this system. But talking about TT rules gets us nowhere because we are not playing TT, we are playing MWO that has a different heat system altogether and no engine crits and all of this for a good reason.
Hell the explination that the engine needed 10 heatsinks to function properly didn't even make sense in TT because then 5 double heat sinks would do the same job. It was simply a lore explination to justify the rule being there, nothing else.
So totally ignoring TT and focusing on MWO rules, would this change improve balance or not? This is the only relevant question to be answered.

[IraqiWalker]

Savage Wolf, on 17 September 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

If lore is the only reason that this restriction exists then it should be removed. Especially because it would help the lightest of mechs which currently could need a boost.



And what is proposed is to change the rules. It would really help especially light mechs that use almost no energy weapons, like ballistics Locusts and Spiders. The heatsinks are just a waste of space.

Nope, not lore. You see in TT all engines came with the 10 heatsinks, and the slots they consumed. PGI allowed us some more customization, and variable engine sizes. So they took out the heatsinks that came with them. In fact, an XL 175 rated engine weighs 8.5 tons. however in game, it's 5.5 and it comes with 7 internal HS. Slap the other 3 in, and you get 8.5, which is the TT weight, with the appropriate slot cost.

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 01:34 AM, said:

So totally ignoring TT and focusing on MWO rules, would this change improve balance or not? This is the only relevant question to be answered.

It would make all ballistic builds absolutely broken beyond belief, and make IS mechs insanely OP in terms of ballistics and heat management, compared to the clan mechs which are forced to take hardwired DHS.

[Lily from animove]

yes I want to see how they run into overheating themselves xD runs 300m ovehreats and stops to cool down.

startup and repeat.

Sound slike turn based MWO incoming.

Edited by Lily from animove, 18 September 2014 - 03:12 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 02:01 AM, said:

Nope, not lore. You see in TT all engines came with the 10 heatsinks, and the slots they consumed. PGI allowed us some more customization, and variable engine sizes. So they took out the heatsinks that came with them. In fact, an XL 175 rated engine weighs 8.5 tons. however in game, it's 5.5 and it comes with 7 internal HS. Slap the other 3 in, and you get 8.5, which is the TT weight, with the appropriate slot cost.

Not sure what that the lore comment was reffering to, especially since you didn't quote anything related to lore or mentioning lore. But what you are talking about is still an example of changes already having been made because this is MWO and not TT.

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 02:01 AM, said:

It would make all ballistic builds absolutely broken beyond belief, and make IS mechs insanely OP in terms of ballistics and heat management, compared to the clan mechs which are forced to take hardwired DHS.

Finally!!! Someone talking about balance!! Alright, I am well aware that this would be a change that would benefit ballistics based mechs because of the low heat they produce. Those are the ones that will benefit from the change and only if they use an engine size smaller than 250.
Granted, a Jaegermech could probably live with such an engine and not suffer too much in the speed department. And it would get 1 extra free tonnage. I don't believe that would broken beyond belief, but then again, the Jaeger doesn't need any boost.
But I guess there might be medium builds that could be improved with this. And many medium mechs could use a boost.
But where I really see balance improving is the lightest of mechs. Locust 1V for example has 4 balistics slots and hardly any room to use them. With a 170 engine it could have 4 extra tons to work with and frankly, it could really need them.

But one could also use a different approach and grant the locust and other such very light mechs the ability to function with less heatsinks as a quirk.

[Savage Wolf]

Lily from animove, on 18 September 2014 - 03:11 AM, said:

yes I want to see how they run into overheating themselves xD runs 300m ovehreats and stops to cool down.

startup and repeat.

Sound slike turn based MWO incoming.

If the 10 heatsinks was required simply to cool the reactor then how come I have any cooling at all with only 10 heat sinks. Tried several builds with the Locust with only 10 heat sinks and it was more than plenty to cool both the reactor and 2 medium lasers.

[Lily from animove]

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 03:30 AM, said:

If the 10 heatsinks was required simply to cool the reactor then how come I have any cooling at all with only 10 heat sinks. Tried several builds with the Locust with only 10 heat sinks and it was more than plenty to cool both the reactor and 2 medium lasers.

because like your cars engine, your reactor should only need 10DHS when you use it at full laod, which would resempbe full speed running. And when you would have less heatsinks than those required 10, full speed runnign would cause you to increase heat steadily while running. Because now not enough HS to dissipate the current performance the reactor works on.

[Savage Wolf]

Lily from animove, on 18 September 2014 - 04:07 AM, said:

because like your cars engine, your reactor should only need 10DHS when you use it at full laod, which would resempbe full speed running. And when you would have less heatsinks than those required 10, full speed runnign would cause you to increase heat steadily while running. Because now not enough HS to dissipate the current performance the reactor works on.

Okay, then let me add some context. I have been using a Locust with 10 heatsinks and been running full speed while firing medium lasers and still, heat was dissipating. If the heatsinks was required simply to keep the engine heat in check then any additional heat from for example lasers wouldn't be handled and thus you wouldn't be able get rid of the extra short of shutting down. But still my heat does dissipate, thus proving the engine does not require the 10 heatsinks.
But then again, you keep using TT logic to explain how it works based on the TT heat system but we are playing MWO with the MWO heat system and what is most likely happening is that in MWO the engines does not need 10 heatsinks (or 5 DHS) to be heat neutral.

[M0rpHeu5]

Egomane, on 17 September 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

And my mind is open. I do not like attempts to circumvent an intended limitation, just because something is worded, or in this case calculated, differently. In roleplaying, we call players that try this, to gain an advantage, munchkins.

I use this but if i could use this i would be munchkin? I am asking you to have an open mind couse you aren't thinking balance, you are thinking TT and realism. I understand that some hardcore TT funs want this to be as close to TT as posible but when you change from a board game to a video game the same rules do not apply.

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 02:01 AM, said:

It would make all ballistic builds absolutely broken beyond belief, and make IS mechs insanely OP in terms of ballistics and heat management, compared to the clan mechs which are forced to take hardwired DHS.

Mind demonstrating an absolutely broken build with smurfy to support your argument?

Lily from animove, on 18 September 2014 - 04:07 AM, said:

because like your cars engine, your reactor should only need 10DHS when you use it at full laod, which would resempbe full speed running. And when you would have less heatsinks than those required 10, full speed runnign would cause you to increase heat steadily while running. Because now not enough HS to dissipate the current performance the reactor works on.

This is about balance, realism, not so much.

[IraqiWalker]

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 03:26 AM, said:

Finally!!! Someone talking about balance!! Alright, I am well aware that this would be a change that would benefit ballistics based mechs because of the low heat they produce. Those are the ones that will benefit from the change and only if they use an engine size smaller than 250.
Granted, a Jaegermech could probably live with such an engine and not suffer too much in the speed department. And it would get 1 extra free tonnage. I don't believe that would broken beyond belief, but then again, the Jaeger doesn't need any boost.
But I guess there might be medium builds that could be improved with this. And many medium mechs could use a boost.
But where I really see balance improving is the lightest of mechs. Locust 1V for example has 4 balistics slots and hardly any room to use them. With a 170 engine it could have 4 extra tons to work with and frankly, it could really need them.

But one could also use a different approach and grant the locust and other such very light mechs the ability to function with less heatsinks as a quirk.

Here are a few problems with it:
1- No mech actually needs this boost. Especially not ballistic mechs. Ballistics already reign as the single most powerful weapons system in the game, with no real competition. The closest is the PPC, and that's not really much.

2- When walking, your mech generates heat (up to 15% on Terra Therma), if you have less than those 10 DHS keeping that heat stable, you will keep increasing in heat, which can actually cause your mech to shut down (or just have 15%+ of it's heat threshold consumed just by walking, on the normal heat maps. TT might put you at 25% just for running) or have a smaller heat threshold than before.

3- Now that I think about it, this wouldn't be a boost at all. It might actually end up causing more damage than good considering the heat problems that come with it.

You see, every heatsink you add increases your cooling rate, however, at the same time, it increases your heat cap as well. You remove those, you make your heat worse on both ends, now you're dissipating less heat, and have an even smaller threshold.

So basically, this will allow you to carry a ton or two more of ammo. That's it. If I'm doing my math right, a single ML being fired when you have 5 heatsinks would put you at around 8+% and takes 5 seconds to cool off (you're cooling at 0.69 hps with full elites), if you're standing still. Fire another weapon with it, and you will not be firing for a while. Keep in mind that you're doing this while your heat is steadily climbing from running. Even if it doesn't climb from running. You will have at least 15+% of your heat up just by running.

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 04:21 AM, said:

Okay, then let me add some context. I have been using a Locust with 10 heatsinks and been running full speed while firing medium lasers and still, heat was dissipating. If the heatsinks was required simply to keep the engine heat in check then any additional heat from for example lasers wouldn't be handled and thus you wouldn't be able get rid of the extra short of shutting down. But still my heat does dissipate, thus proving the engine does not require the 10 heatsinks.
But then again, you keep using TT logic to explain how it works based on the TT heat system but we are playing MWO with the MWO heat system and what is most likely happening is that in MWO the engines does not need 10 heatsinks (or 5 DHS) to be heat neutral.

Actually what you're describing is over-stressing the heatsinks. You see, jumping up in heat from 10% to 20%, means that your heatsinks couldn't absorb the heat. However, given time, they can slowly cool things down. If your 10 was actually enough, you wouldn't jump in heat at all, or jump and cool back down within 1 second.

Add to it that weapons generate heat in bursts, before cooling can take effect, and you can see why it takes time for them. If this was actually TT rules. Your heatsinks should start exploding if you retain more than 20-30% heat after 10 seconds. (don't think 10 seconds is too long though) Remember that time when you got into a brawl and had over 80% heat for most of it? Yeah, if it was TT rules your pilot would be cooked alive, any ammo you had would be rolling to see if it cooks off and explodes, and your heatsinks and reactor would start failing, and rupturing respectively.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 18 September 2014 - 08:31 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

Here are a few problems with it:
1- No mech actually needs this boost. Especially not ballistic mechs. Ballistics already reign as the single most powerful weapons system in the game, with no real competition. The closest is the PPC, and that's not really much.

Quite right at least as long as we are talking about AC5 or bigger. But I'm talking about the merits on mechs which can barely mount an AC2! Mostly they only use MGs and don't tell me those are OP.
And no one needs the boost? You don't think Locusts and Commandoes could do with a little boost so they wouldn't be that much worse than all the other light mechs?

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

2- When walking, your mech generates heat (up to 15% on Terra Therma), if you have less than those 10 DHS keeping that heat stable, you will keep increasing in heat, which can actually cause your mech to shut down (or just have 15%+ of it's heat threshold consumed just by walking, on the normal heat maps. TT might put you at 25% just for running) or have a smaller heat threshold than before.

If I have less than 10 DHS? You mean like 10 SHS? You know that is valid right? And with that, the engine heat does not increase. It's stable. And 9 heatsinks would most likely still be enough considering how much excess cooling 10 has. There might be a lower limit but in that case it would kind of balance itself.
And yes of course you would have less heat threshold but that's part of the risk. Your weapons can generate less heat before the mech shuts down. But it wouldn't do so simply by running.

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

3- Now that I think about it, this wouldn't be a boost at all. It might actually end up causing more damage than good considering the heat problems that come with it.

You see, every heatsink you add increases your cooling rate, however, at the same time, it increases your heat cap as well. You remove those, you make your heat worse on both ends, now you're dissipating less heat, and have an even smaller threshold.

So basically, this will allow you to carry a ton or two more of ammo. That's it. If I'm doing my math right, a single ML being fired when you have 5 heatsinks would put you at around 8+% and takes 5 seconds to cool off (you're cooling at 0.69 hps with full elites), if you're standing still. Fire another weapon with it, and you will not be firing for a while. Keep in mind that you're doing this while your heat is steadily climbing from running. Even if it doesn't climb from running. You will have at least 15+% of your heat up just by running.

Correct, except for the part of about the heat climbing from running. At least not at 9 heatsinks. Maybe lower.

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

Actually what you're describing is over-stressing the heatsinks. You see, jumping up in heat from 10% to 20%, means that your heatsinks couldn't absorb the heat. However, given time, they can slowly cool things down. If your 10 was actually enough, you wouldn't jump in heat at all, or jump and cool back down within 1 second.

Over-stressing the heatsinks? What is this? Heatsinks have the same amount of effectiveness at all times. Same degree of cooling. Heatsinks don't absorb heat, they dissipate it. Weapons cause a burst of heat in an instant that the heatsinks then dissipate over time.
The reactor is of course different because it constantly adds a little heat which then needs to be dissipated at at least the same rate or yes, it would climb slowly. But if 10 was the minimum for this to happen, then it could do anything but just cool the reactor. But it can, so it's more than the minimum. Plenty more.
But really I don't think that's how MWO actually does reactor heat. I think it's just a fixed amount if heat you cannot get rid of. That's also why with 10 SHS on Therma your heat doesn't climb either.

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

Add to it that weapons generate heat in bursts, before cooling can take effect, and you can see why it takes time for them. If this was actually TT rules. Your heatsinks should start exploding if you retain more than 20-30% heat after 10 seconds. (don't think 10 seconds is too long though) Remember that time when you got into a brawl and had over 80% heat for most of it? Yeah, if it was TT rules your pilot would be cooked alive, any ammo you had would be rolling to see if it cooks off and explodes, and your heatsinks and reactor would start failing, and rupturing respectively.

Well it's not TT, so who cares when playing MWO.

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

The heat sinks that are designed for the engine are not the same as the 'add-on' heat sinks.

- The second way of generating power is purely secondary and is called regenerative cooling. Regenerative cooling uses waste heat to generate power. Usually this is done with a closed-cycle gas or steam turbine. In a small way this is a part of the 'Mechs cooling system, even though this is not a part of the heat sink system proper - these are the "free" heatsinks in the engine. While the regenerative cooling machinery is very different from purpose built heat sinks, it still benefits from the materials and technology advances that have made "double strength" heat sinks possible. The regenerative cooling system adds negligible volume to the engine, due to its using the existing plumbing of the engines cooling system. It would be quite useful if all the waste heat from an engine could be soaked up by these so-called "integral heat sinks," but practical limitations mean only so much energy can be extracted from this lower-quality source. Bigger engines make more waste heat and can have larger regenerative cooling systems, but most 'Mechs will use some conventional heat sinks placed elsewhere to handle the excess.

9erRed

[Kmieciu]

I am in favor of overthrowing this rule.
Have you ever driven a heavy ballistic mech with a sub-250 engine? It's a turret. I have 255 in a Cataphract-4X and this thing is terrible. It has the speed of a typical Highlander. I would dare anyone to put a sub-250 engine in there. They would be simply gimping themselves.

Are you really afraid of Gausspust/Gausjagers that run at 55 kph just to get more tonnes of ammo? I get enough tonnes of ammo using an XL300. And belive me, with XL you need that speed to stay alive.

This change would only affect mechs that normally use sub 250 engines. Realistically speaking that would be the Locust and the Commando. They would gain 1-3 tonnes for weapons. They are already the hardest mechs to play. Why won't we give them some slack?

PS. I remember the times when we didn't have that rule (early closed beta) and people dropped in Commandos with 6 or 7 SHS. Guess what? When you overheated in the Caustic caldera, your heat would never drop below 100%.
Personally I preferred the XL300 Commando. Teleporting FTW :-)

Edited by Kmieciu, 18 September 2014 - 11:00 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Quite right at least as long as we are talking about AC5 or bigger. But I'm talking about the merits on mechs which can barely mount an AC2! Mostly they only use MGs and don't tell me those are OP.
And no one needs the boost? You don't think Locusts and Commandoes could do with a little boost so they wouldn't be that much worse than all the other light mechs?

AC2s are absolutely useless on the mechs you want to buff. My 1ML 4 MG build on the Locust 1V, makes it one of the greatest threats late game, and will always out perform any build that uses an AC 2. Commandos don't use ballistics, and for all lights, it has never been the lack of big guns on them that hurt them. It's the lack of survivability. Which can't be fixed by making them more likely to over heat.

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

If I have less than 10 DHS? You mean like 10 SHS? You know that is valid right? And with that, the engine heat does not increase. It's stable. And 9 heatsinks would most likely still be enough considering how much excess cooling 10 has. There might be a lower limit but in that case it would kind of balance itself.
And yes of course you would have less heat threshold but that's part of the risk. Your weapons can generate less heat before the mech shuts down. But it wouldn't do so simply by running.

that one ton you're gaining is absolutely useless in this scenario. It's only use will be for the 10th heatsink, since you can gain no real advantage on a ballistic build with that one ton. If you're using MGs, you already have the tonnage you need. If you're using ACs, one ton literally makes no difference, at best it will allow you to add another ton of ammo. An issue that can be fixed with proper aiming instead.

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Correct, except for the part of about the heat climbing from running. At least not at 9 heatsinks. Maybe lower.

Heat I said either climb, or just take up more of your threshold for walking and running. Again, that 1 ton will make no difference.

The only way to take advantage of this, is by using less than 8 heat sinks to launch. a 2 ton increase might have some potential. 1 ton is useless, especially on lights, who will need all the heat capacity they can get, since they are mianly energy based. With only a couple using ballistics (LCT-1V, SDR-5K, SDR-A, FS9-E, FS9-H, RVN-4x, RVN-H)

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Over-stressing the heatsinks? What is this? Heatsinks have the same amount of effectiveness at all times. Same degree of cooling. Heatsinks don't absorb heat, they dissipate it. Weapons cause a burst of heat in an instant that the heatsinks then dissipate over time.
The reactor is of course different because it constantly adds a little heat which then needs to be dissipated at at least the same rate or yes, it would climb slowly. But if 10 was the minimum for this to happen, then it could do anything but just cool the reactor. But it can, so it's more than the minimum. Plenty more.
But really I don't think that's how MWO actually does reactor heat. I think it's just a fixed amount if heat you cannot get rid of. That's also why with 10 SHS on Therma your heat doesn't climb either.

I was explaining to you what was happening. If you cooling was adequate, you would dissipate all the heat built up within 1 second. If it's taking you longer than one second, your cooling isn't adequate, and will take time. That means, unless you can fire your weapons, and get back to neutral heat, your heatsinks aren't actually enough, and are "being stressed" since you're generating more heat than they can cool off in one second.

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Well it's not TT, so who cares when playing MWO.

Most people that play this game because it's a BT game. Not to mention that so far, every decision that has been made to stick close to TT was actually beneficial to the game, and every one (actually, all but one, that being the inclusion of C3i for all mechs) that was straying from TT ended up riling up the community, and causing problems (ridiculously scaling heat cap, 3PV, Coolant Flush, Single shot ballistics .. .etc.)

So far, the pattern has shown that TT has more balance than MW:O. No I don't believe it's rules should all be taken 1:1. That would be stupid, that was a 10 seconds per turn game. Doesn't apply to a real time game. However, the mechanics should, since they are solid, and have been for over 30 years.

Kmieciu, on 18 September 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

This change would only affect mechs that normally use sub 250 engines. Realistically speaking that would be the Locust and the Commando. They would gain 1-3 tonnes for weapons. They are already the hardest mechs to play. Why won't we give them some slack?

That still wouldn't really help the commando, or the locust. speaking as someone who has been piloting commandos since day 1 (I still do. My 2D is the one I bought 2 weeks into the game, and I still have it, and pilot it to this day), and has written a guide on Locusts (they are my second favorite light mech after the Commando) linked in my sig. I can tell you, the 1 ton wouldn't help. They are energy based mechs, and they will need the heat sinks to not over heat.

---

Understand that I write this from the perspective of measuring the effort needed to make this happen, and it's impact on the game. This is a suggestion that is meant to help light mechs, yet it will actually not help them, at best, or end them at worst. When you end up with players launching in light mechs with few heatsinks you're getting them to have higher heat problems, require more trigger discipline, and over all, make them even harder to play.

Lights are hard to play not because they can't have big guns. Ask the Hollander, or every Firestarter and Spider rendition of it. No, they are harder to play because of the lack of armor. coupled with the high alphas flying around, and lack of a proper reward system for what they do.

They are a hard class to play not because of the mechs themselves, but because of the game, and the way it's reward structure works. This "fix" will either do nothing, or worse yet, break them even more.